Thanks for the clear explanation of your arguments.

I share your frustrations. I have noticed that Catholics for example have lots of options when it comes to Apologetics but for some reason it's difficult to find Anglicans in apologetics like our brother in the video. Maybe someone will come to this comment thread and share recommendations

Thank you!

Thank you!

This!

Why do you reject the 42 articles

“Drink this, all of you” Yet Catholics don’t drink wine during communion.

@@alphaepic6335 I’m 99.9% sure they do

@@oneandonlymoth Google search “communion under one kind.” Communion under both kinds requires special permission from a bishop in most countries, and was discouraged post-Reformation because it was seen as “too Protestant.”

@@oneandonlymothlook up “communion under one kind”. To do “communion under both kinds”, Catholics need special permission from a Bishop.

​@@oneandonlymothUnfortunately Catholics do not receive both, only the bread and this is one of the reasons I've been considering Anglo-Catholicism (almost considered Orthodox but they reject the filioque which is biblically evident).

Thank you!

I wish I could find a Gafcon church in my small town in Canada. I researched them online and the first clue was a statement of being inclusive, then a lady in the ministry team, which tends to be a bad sign. Then I found one of the churches put a "happy pride month" notice on their outside message board, that usually rightfully contains a scripture. My heart sank. I guess most of the Anglican churches are gutted now, unless they are Gafcon.

Well it's not just a symbol. We do literally, or "verily and indeed" eat His flesh and blood. We just don't do it physically. Also, part of what is offensive about it is that Christ is implicitly claiming to be God, since it's He Who gives life.

This is my body. This is my blood.

You are correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

This is my body. This is my blood.

@@hosanna_musicI am the door

Barely Protestant and I will be discussing this very thing in a few days time so stay tuned!

The east has always held to the real presence (which in a way may also be called "transubstantiation" in the broader sense of the term, signifying the belief in a physical change) without making use of aristotelian metaphysics and all this talk of accidents and substance. It is simply early church teaching.

@@Bellg I sometimes wonder if, for a modern audience, it would be better to say "ontological change" instead of "physical." Otherwise it seems like you have to get into talk of accidents and substance to explain that "physical" does not mean something reductive and sterile like "the atoms always necessarily rearrange themselves from carbohydrates and glucose into proteins and fat." Sometimes it feels like everyone is saying the same thing in different centuries language. The Eastern Orthodox confirm the real presence in the language of 800 AD and earlier, the Roman Catholics in the language of 1200 AD and earlier, and the Lutherans/Anglo-Catholics in the language of 1800 AD and earlier.

Just FYI, Catholic hosts used for Mass can be very low-gluten that contain a tiny amount of gluten (as little as .01%) to still make them valid. Many persons with celiac disease are able to receive them and it would be a matter of talking to the relevant priest. You can avoid the wine altogether at a Catholic Mass because the host consists not only of the body of Christ, but also his blood - just sayin.... (we know this because of 1 Corinthians 11:27, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”). Of course, a Celiac can receive Communion under the form of taking the sacramental wine only but I appreciate that does not help you, in this case.

@@clivejames5058 The laity doesn't seem to take the wine any more, only the priests do that. A person w/ severe celiac can't even have trace amounts of gluten. If this person is lower sensitivity, that is helpful information that the RCC hosts only contain trace gluten. Thanks for mentioning that.

I don’t understand this doctrine, do Catholics still believe that the wafer is no longer made of carbohydrates, or that the wine is no longer alcoholic?

@@henryc7548 Transubstantiation was always believed by Christians up until the Reformation. Only Catholics and Orthodox still believe that it is a 'Mystery'. We also know from many Early Church Fathers, to take the words of Christ literally in John 6. To name just two - Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, “Now that you have had this teaching and are imbued with surest belief that what seems to be bread is not bread, though it has the taste, but Christ’s body, and what seems to be wine is not wine, even if it appears so to the taste, but Christ’s blood.” Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote `This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood,’ to prevent your thinking that what is seen is a figure; on the contrary what has truly been offered is transformed in a hidden way by the all-powerful God into Christ’s body and blood. When we have become partakers of Christ’s body and blood, we receive the living giving, sanctifying power of Christ.” The Reformation denied and distorted so much of God's truth - but to be fair to Martin Luther, he always believed in transubstantiation.

False teaching would arise and this is a big one

@moutonfamily2020 I agree, there is no logic to God! Yes, the same Jesus Christ who walked the earth, was at the same time, He who created the world, for WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

IIRC most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox teach that these miracles occur to help or correct a lack of faith in Christs sacrifice. In other words, those miracles happening a few times (if they did happen, neither the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics require belief in such miracles as dogma) does not necessarily imply that the wine always necessarily becomes "AB type blood from a traumatically injured male of Middle Eastern origin". It's interesting to note that pinning down when exactly these miracles occurred (did the wine transform as soon as the priest blessed it, or some time after) is often difficult. I'm just a theology nerd and not a very good one at that, but personally I think that lends credence to the above view that the miracles are more of a one-off for a specific reason then an indication of something that always has to happen. Also interesting to note that in none of the cases I'm aware of, did anyone consume the Eucharist after testing it. Personally, a few sensationalized instances of that miracle occurring sounded fraudulent to me, but I'm willing to believe this has truly happened before.

Rev Max Bayliss.

Hello and peace to you my Christian friend. I think I would basically agree with your friend but I wouldn’t just defer to that as my cover argument for everything. I think Catholic apologetic have a great answers for all of the arguments. Specifically on Eucharist and real presence versus transubstantiation. I am trying to research why Catholic adjacent denominations do not believe the same as Catholics. I listened to this video and I don’t think that we actually believe different things. I think we have distinctions without differences here. The Catholic Church does not tease that there is a physical difference when the bread and wine are consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. I think what we have here is just two different traditions explaining the same thing. What’s your take on this?

​@@PatrickSteil Hey Patrick. Appreciate the warm introduction. I've looked into the issue in depth as much as I can without bias in scripture. It's my personal view point that I don't subscribe to any "transformative" miracle during communion, at least when it comes to literal flesh and blood. So I have very "protestant" outlook in that regard. That's not to say I can't 100% confirm there is nothing spiritual about the event, Christ said he was present amongst even two or three believers. But as for the bread and wine, I would hold them more as symbols, in regard to remembrance. I did write an article about my thoughts on my website, but I can break down in a list here my end conclusions in short: Arguments FOR: -Jesus said “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” -Jesus said “this is my body, this is my blood” -Jesus never explicitly stated “this symbolises my body and blood” -Sacrifices were eaten by the Hebrews -Jesus is compared to the Passover lamb which was eaten -Jesus blessing the bread and wine can be argued to being similar to him blessing the fish and loaves Arguments AGAINST: -Jesus was well known for speaking in metaphors -Jesus compared feeding on him as Heavenly manna to obeying his teachings -Jesus stated those feeding on him would never hunger or thirst, proving a metaphorical application -Jesus stated “the flesh profits nothing, the things I speak are spiritual” when questioned on eating his flesh and blood -Paul metaphorically compares the participation of the bread and wine of Jesus with the drinking from the spiritual rock in the wilderness -Jesus stated his blood “was” poured out before he was sacrificed at his Supper, proving a future tense application of his words on his blood and body, proving there was no flesh or blood literally present -It is never explicitly stated that Jesus miraculously turned bread to his body, or wine to his blood -All the miracles of Jesus were provable and tangible, Transubstantiation is not -Transubstantiation is not observable in either taste, texture, or chemical composition, and therefore has never been physically witnessed in scripture, nor in the modern day -Both in scripture and in the modern day, people can get drunk on the wine of the Lord’s Supper -Sacrifices are not required to be eaten to be effectual in the Law -The blood of sacrifices were never eaten, and therefore the Lord’s Supper cannot be compared to sacrificial eating of animals -Eating blood is forbidden in the Old Law & Christian Law, of which Jesus never broke -Eating the blood of a sacrifice invalidates that sacrifice according to the Law

Catholic edition of the Bible is full of footnotes explaining what different passages mean and how they should be understood. Even as a young Catholic I used to find it disturbing and somewhat mind controlling. When I decided to read the Bible without the footnotes and with an open heart, I ended up leaving the church.

Something that may help you understand where your Catholic friend is coming from - is that when Christ himself promised his Real Presence in the Eucharist, many of his disciples could not accept it. They were shocked and walked away - “This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?” (John 6:68). Christ never said to them "relax, it's only a symbol". Indeed the Eucharistic miracle is so powerful that the apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.

@@clivejames5058 I understand these arguments completely and have read them before and discussed them. As I said, I wrote about all of these arguments and perspectives in my article.

Some people see it that way, personally I'd describe it as 'the real presence' and leave it at that. In the Liturgy it is clear that when the Priest consecrates the Eucharist a real and objective thing has happened so that the elements of bread and wine are now permanently 'the body and blood' of Christ but the benefits of them are only received by those who do so with faith.

No. The Articles say it is “Given, Taken, and eaten” - how can you give something not truly there? It is a Real Presence with the Elements of bread and wine, after a “spiritual manner” - which is just describing the condition of the Body. It is NOT the Natural Corporeal Body, but the Heavenly supernatural/spiritual Body. It’s in this manner or mode he is there. It’s not local natural flesh, but an illocal Supernatural Presence. Hence the Body and Blood are eaten by faith and the bread and wine are eaten physically. A good way to think about this is the Burning Bush. God was present in a manner that was not physical, but real. The Bush did not change into God, yet God was there.

There's no justification for it within our formularies. I see the appeal of it, but it's using the sacrament is a way not instituted by Christ, which in itself should give us pause, and it's also theologically jutified by ROme on the basis of the thoroughly deviant medeival practice of not encouraging the laity to take communion, instead they just watched the consecration and somehow vicariously had the benefits applied to them through ocular means, but without the "risk" of unworthy consumption. This is a peculiar Roman practice (no other Christian group doe this), and I can't think of a justification unless you beleive Rome is infallible so if they allow it it must be okay

@@internetenjoyer1044 On some Anglicans forums I heard it argued that if we acknowledge Christ is really present in the Eucharist, then He deserves worship, regardless of whatever capacity He is present in

@@johna4387 The issue is that if transubstantiation or the Lutheran view (the Lutheran view actually has a strong sense of local presence than transubstatiation, but they dont do adoration outside of the liturgy becuase it wasn't instituted by Christ) isnt true, then Christ isn't present there in a spatial way; he's conjoined to the bread sacramentally insofar as you eat Him when you eat the bread, but you're not looking in His direction when you look at the bread

For Anglicans the presence of Christ's body and blood is spiritually found within the hearts of the receivers of the sacramental bread and wine, not locally present in the bread and wine themselves. For Roman Catholics, it is the other way around.

@@newkingdommedia9434 Hey, thanks for the reply. The way you just now described this doesn't seem to match up with what you said at the very outset of your video where you were reading from your 1662 Catechism. Here is what you said: "Anglicans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Lord's supper, the body of Christ is verily, and indeed, taken and received. The presence of Christ is only there in a spiritual and heavenly manner." Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or just in the hearts of those that receive it? Confused :)

@@PatrickSteil Christ is present in the Eucharist in that while His people take the Eucharist they receive Him in their hearts.

@@newkingdommedia9434 Now you said it another way, lol.... that didn't help clarify. Is Christ present in the Eucharist or in the people? It doesn't make sense to call it the "Real Presence" if you are claiming Christ is not present in the Eucharist. Also goes against John 6.

@@PatrickSteil When I am saying 'Eucharist' I do not mean the elements of bread and wine but the whole celebration itself. The bread and wine become sacraments of Christ's body and blood, to be treated with reverence, but it is only within the receivers' hearts that the real presence is found. This is the teaching of Augustine and we do not see it as contradicting John 6

As a further thought regarding my comment about being soft on the Romanists: remember that a traditional Roman Catholic will not accept your rite of the Lord’s Supper as valid at all. Anglican orders, say they, are utterly void and invalid. Only modernist Romanists disagree with this. Pope Leo was crystal clear about that. And recall that modernist Roman Catholics don’t believe in the uniqueness of Christ as the only way to God. Jews needn’t believe in Jesus to be saved and neither do any other religions so long as the devotees of them are sincere and living up to what they know.

Thanks for this!

Lol Romanist. That’s funny.

@@molodoychilovek1949 When you refer to Romanists that's an insult...are you going to refer to catholics now as papists.

No magisterium in a church that is synodical in nature. We do have the three legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason to determine how doctrine is interpreted and applied so that it can make connections with living in the world today.

Good analogy!

@@moutonfamily2020 Codswallop!

@@moutonfamily2020Waldensians, Claudius of Turin and some others

Even that was not rejected. It just says it’s not found in scripture. It never says it’s forbidden, just not found in scripture.

The 28th article says transubstantiation is "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture". Disbelief in the 39 articles is also not rejected. In fact many Anglicans view it only as a historical document of the church.

@@alfredsturges9015 I was referring to adoration of the Sacrament. That part says it is not in the Scriptures. That is not a condemnation, just a neutral statement.

​@@devinlawson2208 you can certainly take it to be neutral. I don't think the authors of the 39 articles felt that way about it though. Archbishop Cranmer wrote the 42 articles that later became the 39 articles. Check out what he wrote for the 30th article, which didn't make the cut for the 39: *Of the Perfect Oblation of Christ Made Upon the Cross.* The offering of Christ made once forever is the perfect redemption, the pacifying of God’s displeasure, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which, it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or sin, were forged fables and dangerous deceits. _In Archbishop Cranmer's view there was nothing in the Sacrament to be adored._ I think it's also worthwhile to highlight the the Black Rubric again. In the 1552 edition of the BCP says in regard to adoration of the Sacrament: "...lest the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood..." . That was probably a compromise position between John Knox and Archbishop Cranmer, with Knox wanting the Lord's Supper to be received sitting, and Cranmer kneeling.

@@alfredsturges9015 I don’t think invoking the personal theological convictions of Cranmer is helpful. The Articles were debated and drafted under Parker. Any of Cranmer’s work has little to no bearing on the English Church as pertains to official doctrine. Only the Convocation of Bishops can do that, and most of those articles were put forth by his own authority, and we now know the convocation never approved them. So with that said, the black rubric was not instituted by any lawful authority. It was never passed by the Convocation and was illegal. Illegal insertions do not constitute the doctrine of the Church. The only approved form of the Rubric was altered drastically to note that it doesn’t adore the bread and wine (duh, nobody says that), and Christ isn’t present Corporally. Well yeah, we don’t adore bread and wine and he isn’t there corporally. We adore the body and blood there spiritually/mystically. Citing the black rubric doesn’t work because it was never approved of by the Anglican Church.

Spiritual =/= symbolic or unreal. Angels are spiritual beings and are just as real as you and I are. God Himself is Spirit and is the basis for reality itself. Christ is not *physically* present but is spiritually present and this is real.

How is it difficult to understand? A spiritual presence is still a real presence... just not a physical presence. My soul is only spiritually present in my body and yet its still really present... it's not as though my soul is not present because its not physically present (that would be impossible) It's not complicated at all.

@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry If Christ is spiritually present, which since he is God it must be true, in all things, why would there be a reason for the Eucharist to be so special? What would be the difference between eating normal piece of bread and the Eucharist in terms of this notion of spiritual presence? This is because it is impossible for Christ to be only spiritually present and really present simultaneously. In the following there will be offered a hopefully simple demonstration of this fact. Your soul IS your body. Though it can be separated from the soul at death, the body is the human soul's sole principle of individuation apart from its genus (man), that genus only serving to individuate it from each angel and God and animals etc but not other men, who are only different in body but equal in nature/genus. Thus the body is inseparable from the identity of the human soul. Your soul is, of course, spiritually present in your body but also wholly equal to it in substance. One's body and soul are two differently intelligible aspects of ONE substance. Likewise, the bread, since Christ is fully man and fully divine, with neither nature inseparable from the other, it literally his body. Christ is his body because he is fully man, and thus if Christ is really and literally present, he must therefore have a body. Therefore the eucharist is his body, since Christ is present in its physicality. Therefore the eucharist is only bread in its accidence, not its substance, since for a body of any accidental form to bear Christ, it must be literally his body and not retain its own separate nature, since Christ is his body and thus can only exist in a body that is his own entirely. Now, since Christ is also fully divine, and with the eucharist being his body, and Christ's body being literally Christ, the eucharist must be not only his body (& blood), but also his soul and divinity. I will be praying for you, kind stranger. May God have mercy on you and on all of us. Viva Christo Rey!

​@@Thomas-Purell-MinistryYea but Jesus literally calls it his Flesh and Blood in John 6. If it was his spiritual body it wouldn't be Flesh and Blood.

@TruLuan I agree. I have come to change my view on the matter as I draw closer to the Orthodox Church, I am realising more and more that protestantism has a lot of false theology and doctrines. Anglicanism is the best of protestantism, but the Orthodox Church has not changed since the apostolic deposit and has accurate theology, practices, dogmas, liturgy, etc. God bless.

Those who come to Christ will never thirst and never hunger. Coming to Christ, eating, drinking, are all spiritual. You still hunger and thirst after partaking of the Eucharist. The entire chapter of John 6 is about believing on Christ. The people wanted real food, not spiritual. Just follow the argument from verse 1 to the end.

You guys did in 1054 though and allow things un-biblical practices such as divorce even outside of adultery, contraception and the inane belief that one must be baptized via triple immersion which would then be admitting that Jesus himself had an invalid baptism.

It seems you completely misunderstand spiritual presence, we've not taken Christ out of the Eucharist, He's present in a real way, albeit spiritual, but it's evident that He's not physically present, listen carefully again the the video and this is all clear. There seems to be little to no basis for thinking Christ's actual physical body and blood are present, and that is based on Scripture, Patristics, Tradition, philosophy etc. But much like with Marian dogmas the RC's seem bent on making unbiblical additions. Indulgences spring to mind, or stopping the laity from having access to Scripture for centuries, or burning Christians alive etc... The RC's have many issues that everyone other than RC's spot from a mile off. I've yet to see any valid biblically grounded case for many of these accretions of the RC Church. However I believe those who have genuine faith in Christ are saved regardless of denomination. But I imagine you don't.

​@@Thomas-Purell-Ministry Protestants and Orthodox have many issues that everyone else see from a mile off too, what's your point? We don't quite agree for a reason. Christians persecuting each other is nothing exclusive. Anglicans have mistreated Irish Catholics historically too. Bibles used to be handwritten, they were expensive. Would you pass your Bible that would take months to copy to any Tom Dick or Harry? The Printing Press was convenient.

Spiritual doesn't mean symbolic. I've made this clear. Anglicans like myself believe that Christ is truly, really, and literally present in the Sacrament and that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Spiritual just means not physically.

​@@newkingdommedia9434You should look at the Eucharistic miracles that have happened in the RCC. It's hard to deny transubstantiation my friend.

@UC7wR5ESagmTzEyyt115lyZw spatial presence (physicality) is an accidental quality of a substance (for example, you do not cease to be your substance when you grow)...in Roman Dogma there is a substantial presence of Christ, not a physical one, the physical presence is of the remaining accidents of bread and wine

Since in transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine transform into that of flesh and blood it is correct to say that you would be physically eating flesh and physically drinking blood. Yes, the accidents remain unchanged (and I don’t even believe in this substance/accidents distinction) but they are now accidents of flesh and blood. Thus, the substance that you are physically consuming is Christ and He is therefore encountered physically. If the RCC denies this then they are contradicting themselves. This fact can be clearly seen in their practices of adoration directed to the Eucharist elements themselves such as bowing and praying before them and the traditional custom of only receiving the body on the tongue.

John 6: 51-58 Bible never says it was only for disciples that is false doctrine of denominations !!

@@mpkropf5062 sure ok when did they observe that after Jesus Christ was crucified. How could anyone else besides Jesus say this is my body and blood? How does that work? We all are missionaries. There is no one vicar. 😂 Catholic heresy. It was for the apostles one time deal. The whole rest of the Bible where Jesus Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood is allegorical. There's nowhere else they practice the eucharist. No one else besides the person can take ownership of someone else's body. Immature and cultic.

An yet a few moments later He calls it bread and fruit juice