What an outstanding conversation! Protestant here who is gaining appreciation for these dialogues. If this is possible, what else is possible? May this prove a hopeful sign of marvelous things to come.
Gavin was clear, well-prepared, concise, confident, calm, and articulate. Gavin looked calm and thoughtful, pure in spirit to express his thoughts in clear language and understanding. Gavin emailed both men in preparation of the interview, pure intentions from a man hoping to give clear information. Gavin, thank you for being prepared, articulating so well your thoughts on a very important topic and representing Protestants in a dignified, well-meaningful and loving way.
Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Salkeld, thank you both so much for this discussion. I am a Catholic, formerly Presbyterian, and I deeply appreciate your mutual respect and candor. I learned so much from listening to you both! And thank you, Austin, for organizing and facilitating this wonderful exchange. May God bless you all in your ministries, and may Truth indeed unite us to Himself and one another.
one thing that I thought would be clear in the discussion but from reading comments evidently might be useful to clarify: "spiritual presence" does not mean "non-physical presence." It simply means the Spirit effects the union between Christ and the elements. Thomas and Calvin are agreed on that point. It seems this language trips people up so hopefully this clarifies! :)
At the time of the Reformation when the Lutherans were warding off what became known as Crypto Calvinism, two questions were focused on to test whether or not a theologian's views addmitted a *real* Real Presence. They are: (1) What is received with the mouth in the eating and drinking? (2) What is received by the unworthy communicant? The Reformed position, as I understand it, would answer (1) with Bread and Wine and (2) Bread and Wine. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. If I'm correct, respectfully, I fail to see how spiritual presence means something other than non-physical or can be called Real Presence. I'm not partial to the language of Real Presence for this very reason: It is ambiguous enough to make it sound as though the Reformed position approaches what, say, a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic means when they say "Christ's body and blood is eaten and drunk in the Holy Communion." The Formula of Concord speaks of the True and Substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. Luther simply calls the Bread Christ's Body and the Wine his Blood. I know the language of Empty Sign can be an offense, but this seems to me to be the case of the Reformed position. I'm happy to be corrected. Again, said with respect to you, Dr. Ortlund.
@@marcuswilliams7448 thanks Marcus. You are right on those two questions. The answer is bread and wine on (2) because only those united to Christ can feast upon a Christ, from a Reformed perspective. The unbeliever is like the bottle with the cork on top that cannot receive any water. That doesn't make it an empty sign, I'd argue, any more than baptism is an empty sign because the hypocrite is not regenerated while baptized. An "effective sign" is not one that works regardless of the recipient's posture and openness. The answer on (1) is a little tricky but you're right that we do hold that the organ of reception the entire body and soul, not just the mouth, and that it is fundamentally a spiritual reception achieved through a physical act. So, you could say the answer is just bread and wine to (1) as well, *though* there are senses in which we could say it is more. My point was more modest: just to clarify that the adjective "spiritual" does not mean non-physical. We think the Spirit effects union between the elements and Christ's *physical* body and blood. I think some people out there here the word "spiritual" and think this means Christ is only present in his divine nature, or in some vague way. Again, Thomas and Calvin are pretty similar on this point.
@@TruthUnites Right. The Lutheran Confession is not that the unbeliever eats and drinks beneficially, he eats and drinks judgment to himself, but precisely for the reason that in his unworthy reception, he sins against the Body and Blood of Christ, present with the Bread Wine. It isn't that Christ's Body and Blood are, in themselves, poison. However, they are received in judgment by the unworthy because of their unworthiness. In other words, God's presence isn't yet good news, nor beneficial. God's presence *for you*, however, is beneficial and received by faith. The Parable in Mt 25 illustrates this well enough. It is the self-same Christ, present before the Sheep and the Goats, who graciously welcomes one group and condemns and sends away the other. Finally, I would say, your position, if it does, indeed, deny that, with the mouth, the body and blood of Christ is eaten and drunk cannot, at the same time, assert that Christ is physically joined to the elements; unless such words signify something other than what they sound like.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Thanks marcus. Yes, I understand the Lutheran view of eating and drinking judgment. We'd say the unbeliever is eating and drinking judgment as well, but not feasting on Christ. On your final point, we don't deny that the mouth is the organ by which the spiritual eating is occasioned. This is why Calvin so strongly objected to simply adoring the host and insisted on consuming. But we think the ultimate incorporation of Christ in the Eucharist is via the entire body and soul (hence "spiritual eating"). Also to clarify, we don't say Christ is "physically" joined to the elements, as you put it, and neither would Thomas Aquinas. We do say his physical flesh is spiritually united to the elements. Geez, this gets nuanced, doesn't it?
@@TruthUnites thanks for explaining this: as one who first heard of Luther's view in my church history class at Biola University and knew instantly that there is more to the Lord's supper than just my Baptist memorial view that I had grown up with. My view would be the same or very similar to your comment here.
"The person who partakes worthily is truly feasting upon Christ and upon his presence" As an Orthodox Christian I would add that in the Orthodox Church, despite the state of your soul and your participation in repentance, YOU ARE receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and it will either establish you or destroy you. So I would argue that Christ is present no matter what state your soul is in....the question then becomes are you repentant and will you be healed? Or are you unrepentant, continuing in your sin, and be judged and destroyed? The physical presence of Jesus Christ isnt dependent on the state of your individual soul. He is present regardless.
During my convertion from atheism to Catholicism, on Christmas 2020 I (stupidly) participated to the Eucharist not knowing (maybe just suspecting) that, as the Bishop of my city some time later explained, it is a grave sin to do so if one doesn't truly believe in the physical presence of Jesus and hasn't confessed recently. I'll add that to my long list of sins I'm preparing for my first confession in 42 years.
@@kansashoneybadger7899 That's a remarkable coincidence (?). After unworthily attending the Eucharist on Christmas 2020, I had by far the worst year of my life in terms of physical and mental health in 2021, with several new problems starting and old problems coming back or getting much worse. For most of the year I had problems with my teeth, joints and muscles, hormonal deficiencies (which caused depression and a severe deterioration of my mental faculties), they found white matter lesions in my brain, got prostate enlargement, urinary infections, covid (the mildest of all problems, but it added to the rest) and my usual chronic cough, which in the past 20 years has lasted two to three months each year, continued for as long as six months. I was always quite a strong and healthy person till 2021 - apart from some back and knee pain and the chronic cough, all other issues were new.
The question then is, does the unrepentant sinner become more judged and more destroyed by partaking unworthily or are they the same judged and same destroyed as they already were/are?
I totally agree! We talk a lot about presence and who is authorized to preside at the Eucharist, but few things are really out there outlining the idea of sacrifice. Thanks for this!
Wow I must say my mouth dropped open listening to Dr. Ortlund's opening answer/statement. I must say I don't think I've ever encountered a Baptist, and nearly my entire family are, that espouses anything but a strictly memorialist view. I still smile at people I meet today who think Calvin hung the moon but have no clue that he believed in a spiritual presence view. Great and productive discussion here as always. Praying for everyone to have a very blessed Lent.
@@kansashoneybadger7899 I'm not a Calvinist at all myself. I actually am leaning strongly towards the Orthodox point of view on a lot of topics, but many friends and family of mine are Southern Baptist and the teachings of John Calvin, one of the protestant reformers, have experienced a huge resurgence in the SBC over the last 10 years or so. It's relevant because one of the guests in the video is Baptist, representing the Baptist point of view.
@@bassguitar1919 O.k. I'll admit my comment was a tad crude. I found myself in a spot I had to explore Christian theology to determine where to g after Protestantism. I knew I wanted to remain Christian, there was never a question there. So, the question, which I should have posed is this: Given that person is a sincere enquirer who is looking for the Truth as taught by Christ, now in the 21st Century. Why would Calvin have any particular authority? Why should I have looked to Calvin for answers? The Eastern Orthodox concept of "authority" relates to Apostolic Succession and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers lived within a few generations of the Apostles. Clement followed Peter during the joint lifetimes. St. Ignatius followed Polycarp in their joint lifetimes. Polycarp followed St. John during their joint lifetimes. Given that perspective the fact that a cleric in Geneva Switzerland acquired a following of people in the 1500's or 1600's, means nothing to me as an EO. Also, as lovely as most Baptists are as people, the fact that their leadership chose to follow Calvin, as opposed to St. Ignatius, Clement, St. Athanasius, St. Irenaeus, and the Cappadocian Fathers means virtually nothing to me. No offense meant, hope none is taken. Remember also that the Reformers: Calvin, Zwingli, Luther and Melancthon, split into 7 different theological directions within a year of 1519 and the 95 thesis.
I was raised in a Baptist church and didn't hear of Luther's position until my church history class at a Protestant University were the three major views were stated: I knew instantly that there was a Spiritual Presence as well as just the memorial view: both are applicable. I still reject the RCC view because of the poor RCC interpretations that the Roman Catholics use to defend their distinctives ; that miss the Jewish 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that Jesus taught in Matthew and John. Funny how the RCC state Peter as their first Pope but Paul was there with Peter at Rome and the RCC rejects his teachings on Grace and The Holy Spirit's baptism in Titus 2:11-15 ; 3:4-8.
Oooohhhhh yes! I am really looking forward to this dialogue between these 2 amazing people! I am a Protestant, and I never had heard of the term Eucharist until I began watching your channel. Many of your guests here on Gospel Simplicity have helped widen my understanding of…what I’ve known as communion. Thank you for bringing this dialogue together for this interview! Can’t wait!
@Continually Curious. If you like to find out more about the Eucharist, you may like to explore Scott Hahn who has produced a few amazing videos and writings on the Eucharist. I would like to share with you 2 of his videos czcams.com/video/REQ9SX0nVAo/video.html czcams.com/video/bIKWtd62cAk/video.html
61 I Am Present in the Eucharist despite the misinterpretation of My Promise Thursday, April 14th, 2011 @ 00:05 My dearly beloved daughter, do not worry. You are improving in the way you are setting time aside in prayer to Me. Now it is important that man understands that in order to come closer to My Heart, he must understand the need to receive the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist. Many people, including other Christian groups, deny My Real Presence in the Eucharist. Why they have decided to deny the promises I made at My Last Supper, where I promised I would give My Flesh and Blood as Food and Nourishment for your souls, is unclear. What is clear is that the Miracle of the Holy Eucharist, Present in all Tabernacles all over the world, Exists today, and is there to fill your poor, undernourished and empty souls with My Presence. This Presence will strengthen you in ways, that, were you to miss receiving Me once you get used to this, you will feel lost. Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made during My Crucifixion, where I would be Present in Bread and Wine and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls. Too much human reasoning has meant that I have been rejected by even well meaning Christians. These same Christians cannot receive the Holy Eucharist in its True Form. The Most Holy Eucharist was given to you all as a great Gift for your redemption and salvation. By rejecting the fact that I Am Present, means that you are forfeiting special graces, which are part of a pact to bring Me even closer into your hearts. Remember, when I died for you, it was to lead you to towards eternal life and salvation. Receive Me as the Living Presence and your souls will alight in ways you would not have believed possible. Turn back to receiving My Body and Blood. Let Me remove your doubts. This is one of the biggest mistakes Christians have made, by denying Me entry to their souls in this way. It greatly offends My Eternal Father because of the Sacrifice involved to save your souls. Let Me bring Light and nourishment into your lives. You will be more inclined to accept the Truth of My Teaching after The Warning takes place. Remember what I promised during My Last Supper that when you take the bread and wine it will become for you My Body and My Blood.* Any other interpretation has been distorted by human logic and reasoning. Now understand and accept the Truth. Your loving Saviour, Jesus Christ *For clarification on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation please refer to the Message given on Friday, June 1, 2012 08:15 PM “When the antichrist devours all religions the only weapons which he will be powerless against is the Holy Mass and the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into My Body and Blood, in the Holy Eucharist.”
Praying for unity. I was very moved by the quote from Ratzinger. As a protestant heading toward the RCC, I believe communion isnt just play acting as a protestant. I think if we as see as Ortlund said Christ in each one of us we can move toward unity.
Great discussion. Really enjoyed the relaxed vibe from Dr. Brett, great balance for Dr. Gavin. I enjoy how knowledgeable they are. Let’s keep the conversation going! Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict, are soo good. Much Love a from South American Catholic. Our Father, here’s your church. Thank you for these men sharing their knowledge about Your Church. Unite us in your Love. Bring us all Home. love you, my Love. Amen
It’s amazing how much Gavin spoke highly of Aquinas and how often Brett spoke highly of Luther. Great discussion. If all ecumenical dialogue happened this way, I feel as if reunion might be possible!
I don't mean to be mean, but I must say this is the first Catholic theologian or apologist that seems like they are genuinely trying to be honest. It always seems like they are twisting words, or creating straw Men, or misrepresenting. This person actually answered the questions honestly and was willing to admit when there were some gray areas that don't really make sense. I was Catholic for 30 years before converting. This man at least gives me some hope that some Catholics are actually thinking about these important matters and recognizing that there are some serious theological problems with Catholic teaching.
When you said you converted to Catholicism "by reading the bible" did you mean without THE EXTRA CATHOLIC BOOKS ADDED TO "EXPLAIN" SCRIPTURE AND BEYOND? Catholics ADD SO MUCH dogma & doctrine TO scripture, God's Word. Mostly I'm referring to Canon Law and The Catechism; it's been said that 80-90% of Catholic teaching (and practices) are outside the bible and change. There's just so much EXTRA, made by men, who are sinful and fallible, which are absolutely required or else a person (all Christians outside Catholicism) is doomed to hell (because the the beliefs and practices are mortal sins). Biblical Christians rely on JESUS for life and complete forgiveness, & not on an institution. JESUS left the Holy Spirit on earth in believers--not Peter/popes (Peter said he was a fellow elder), and HIS HOLY WORD. That's what JESUS did. JESUS. I TRUST JESUS, the author & finisher of faith.
@@susanburrows810 no, as a Protestant, I didn’t read those. Also, I wrote a 50 page paper that is an apologetic for the Catholic teachings from the Bible. If you’d like to read it, I can send it. It’s mainly for Protestants, so it relies on the Bible, the 66 books yall use. Also, look into the councils of Carthage and Hippo, which affirmed the Catholic canon, before Protestants took them out
@Dani M There has not been a single case of these "eucharistic miracles" where the claims of the church has been verified using modern scientific tools.
Michael, that is incorrect. Dr. Franco Serafini’s book, A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles examines just that.
@@EpoRose1 Anyone can write a book making all sorts of claims. If he truly had solid data supporting rhe claims of the church, those would be published in a well respected scientific journal and subjected to peer-review. That is how it is done in the academic world. All scientific hypotheses and theories are presented to and scrutinized by peers. If they have found and isolated DNA from various cases it should be a breeze to compare those and thus see if those are from the same person. No such data has been presented. Why?
The Eucharist isn't a scientific experiment. Rome's obsession with examining the Eucharist under a microscope is as absurd as the Feast of Corpus Christi. Christ said, Eat and Drink. Pretty simple.
Thanks Austin, Gavin, and Brett! It really seems like these are the kinds of discussions that should take place *within* a single, unified Church, rather than across separated ecclesial bodies. I understand it will take work to get there, but we really do need to get there.
Austin, thank you for bringing together these great Christian thinkers of our day. Regarding the Holy Eucharist, I was bugged down during the pandemic when access to the church was not possible and I could not receive communion or attend Mass. As I reflected on the prayer of Spiritual Communion while watching live Mass on line, I reflected on how much the physical union with Jesus had meant to me. Our God is so loving that he wants to be one with us in all sense of the word.
If Christ is present, the Person must be present. To say he is spiritually present is to rend the Personal Union of the Two Natures apart. Wherever Christ is, there He is with His Divine and Human Natures. Said with all love for Dr. Ortlund, still my favorite Baptist.
Although I do appreciate your comment, I do have a question. Do you deny the human nature of Christ? Obviously you would say no, but if we hold to a view of transubstantiation Christ loses His human nature by being distributed thousands of times every moment across the Earth. This, even when scripture says he is seated at the right hand of the father and will return again some day. I’m not saying he cannot be present with us in some way in the Eucharist, but I just wanted to present some considerations. Thanks:)
@@joshuahaley7086 Thanks for the question, Joshua. Yes, I do affirm that Christ has a True Human Nature, but, unlike ours, it is joined in a Personal Union with the Son of God. Divinity assumed Humanity. Because of this Personal Union and what is called in Dogmatics, the Communication of Attributes, our Lord's True Human Nature is capable of doing particular things ours is incapable of. One example is that God purchased the Church with His blood (Acts 20). He atoned for the sins of the world. If you or I were crucified, it would purchase no one from anything. So, as respecting His presence in the Holy Communion, it can be present, not in a Localized or Circumscribed way, but as the Lutherans came to confess, in a Sacramental way. As to the question of God's Right Hand, it is not a Location, as if the Human Nature of Christ is Circumscribed to a place. The Right Hand is an Exaltez Position of Authority, according to which Christ Jesus fills all things as the Person (Eph. 4).
@Christos Kyrios Where Christ is, there *He* is. I know of no other Presence of the Son of God than the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Consider the Lutheran categories respecting the Communication of Attributes. Because He has ascended to glory, Christ Jesus--according to His Human Nature--fills all things. So, yes, when He says, "Lo, *I* am with you," the very One who speaks the Word is present.
@Christos Kyrios I am saying that, yes. I don't say that His Humanity possesses this quality essentially, but because of the Personal Union of the Two Natures and the Communication of Attributes; especially the Communication of Majesty. Does the shedding of blood ordinarily atone for the sins of the world? Because Christ's does, is it not a True Human Nature? Christ has a True Human Nature that has been assumed into Divinity.
you would be hard-pressed to find a more intellectually intense (as opposed to emotionally intense) discussion around the Eucharist than this. hats off to both men for their cordial, yet meaningful, approach to their positions ---- and the positions of the other.
@Thomad Reusser. Yes he has a nice demeanour. Nevertheless he still holds Protestant views that are incompatible with the deposit of truth Jesus left with the Catholic Church.
What a change - when I was a teenager in the 1960's we had ecumenical meetings during the week of Christian Unity, we all went to each others churches for a service and made friends with those of other faiths - we Catholics with Anglicans, Methodists, Unitarians (I think), Quakers but . . . no Baptists - they refused to join us in those services - so this is a leap forward from those days
Christian Unity? We will have Christian Unity only when all the Christians are Catholic again! Our Lord Jesus instituted only ONE Church. Why would He need more than one, just causing this confusion for us?
@@alhilford2345 You contradicted yourself. Why label the Church of Christ as ‘Catholic?’ You say we need to come together in Catholic Unity, but why use the term, Catholic? Why not use the term as you first used, Christian Unity. The word Catholic is a huge trigger word for believers so, maybe simply love your brother, as a believer in Christ Not, love your Catholic brother. Peace 😊
I love the fact that Dr. Ortlund mentioned our tribalism and way of "othering" each other. The Eucharist has become a weapon: a way of punishing and excluding those who are not seen "worthy". The worthiness game is one that is not is of Christ but the way of immature tribal religion.
@@Tanjaicholan you cannot learn from anyone who threatens the faith. You should be firm like Job when they asked him to leave God and David when he knew Saul was his king chosen by God even though Saul had lost it. People don't want us to be one for some human reason which we should shun by all means. Imagine saying no to divisionists who want us to respect their divisions of the Faith... we would be stronger than ever, today Christians disagree on matters even like abortion and the qwerty culture because there are divisionists among us who divide us and we stupidly respect them, we would make it known to them that they are excommunicated if they veered off track IF we were one, let's be one.
@@Tanjaicholan : But kop pite is correct! Our Lord Jesus established ONE Church. Why would He need more than one? Does it make sense? Why have thirty thousand different sets of doctrines when ONE will do the job?
But what about the fact that Catholics use the eucharist in a very exclusive way: NO ONE CAN PARTICIPATE UNLESS you are a Catholic IN GOOD STANDING. No casual, infrequent Catholics and NO ONE outside the Catholic church. In contrast, Biblical Christians (all denominations) welcome ALL BELIEVERS to participate in the Lotd's Supper!😊
One of those dialogues where I’m grateful to be Orthodox “The Eucharist is a great mystery!” We can say what has been revealed but beyond that…mystery and that’s fine. The creation of the World, Incarnation, what heaven is like… we can’t possibly know now ‘we see through a glass darkly’.
I’ve always found it interesting that EVERY Church that has an organic connection with Christ through apostolic succession believes in the CORPOREAL presence of Christ in the Eucharist (body blood soul and divinity) while those that do not have that connection hold more to a “spiritual” but not corporal presence. Ignatius of Antioch who knew John the Apostle having been ordained by him says of the Eucharist “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Hard to imagine he got it wrong and Calvin got it right .
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus founded a visible church with real teaching authority ergo a specific Church - How do we know it’s visible? Well our Lord tells believers to bring those who will not hear the witness of other to “the church” (Matthew 18:16) - and if they refuse “ to listen even to the church let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector “( Mt16:17). Now Christ would not have commanded us to go to the Church if the Church was not identifiable or visible. Similarly He would not command us to listen to the teaching of that visible church if the Church did not have binding teaching authority. Thus the Church that Christ is describing must have the charism of infallibility since He being God - would not command believers to be bound to the teaching of the Church - if the Church could teach error. There are many verses in the Bible that point to a Church that has such authority - though not the topic of discussion in this blog. Indeed Saint Paul describes the church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15. Now we know or should know that the Church in Saint Paul’s time was visible and had an organic connection with a Christ himself - through apostolic succession thus - none of the Protestant churches can possibly be “the Church” Christ is referring to when he tells believers to hear the Church. Since all of the Churches that have an organic connection with Christ hold to the “real corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and that this presence is not only HIS BODY and blood - but also his Spiritual presence - it follows that His Body blood soul and divinity are present in the Eucharist. Moreover this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches - and I think history shows that it is the Catholic Church - which is the visible church - established by Christ. Since Christ commands us to hear the church - I can believe what His church teaches It’s not far fetched from a biblical standpoint either as - the Bible properly understood teaches the. Real presence (though I think the Catholic in this presentation laces his reasoning with ambiguity - this does not provide a good witness to the biblical understanding/ teaching on the real presence). Certainly it’s a stretch to say Christ points us to the Baptist Church as the pillar and ground of the truth since the Baptist Church didn’t exist until over 1500 years after Christ - that seems apparent no matter how Protestant apologists try to worm their positions into the early church. But suffice it to say the EVERY Church with an organic connection with Christ through apostolic succession holds to this doctrine - it doesn’t have to be explicit in the Bible in order to be true. Where for example does the Bible teach that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday? Certainly implied but not explicit. There are many other things like this. I hardly think that the central doctrine of Christianity which was held up until the time of the reformation would have been misunderstood by the church until the reformation.
@@mikeoconnor4590 you obviously don't realize that Christ didn't start the RCC/ Orthodox church: but they developed out of the many earlier churches started by All the Apostles and are a man made organizations just like Protestants churches based on the teaching of the Bible and Church fathers. But bad interpretations have split Christianity into the various traditions and denominations that we see today: and the RCC broke away from the Orthodox way before the Reformation happened so the RCC is really the first Protestant church and Protestants are really Catholic in that we are part of the Universal church that existed before the Orthodox and RCC developed by getting back to what they accepted from the Bible books that that were later confirmed into a Canon that the earlier churches were already using as authentic Scripture. BTW there have always been Christians outside of the Orthodox/ RCC churches and these people were highly persecuted by the RCC and orthodox which led up to the Reformation to and trying to bring back the RCC in the west from its political domination of Europe and persecution of non RCC Christians and other non - Christian religions groups. When the RCC names all these groups as heretics then it's lost it's right to God's authority and just becomes a tool for popes to persecute others . Thanks but Christianity wasn't united up until the Reformation: very erroneous RCC propaganda that only Roman Catholics believe. You really have to shut your mind off to Believe that. Don't read any church history book. The idea that Christ's Church is only a visible one and is only the RCC is so ludicrous that only Roman Catholics believe that: the true believers have their names in the Lambs book of life and WE are the Universal Spiritual church that transcends all traditions and denominations. The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest and then the counterfeit Christians in every church will be uprooted and burned and the true wheat will be gathered into the kingdom of God Matt 13:25-30. It ain't a church that you need to push and traditions like the Pharasees Matt 23:23-30. But a true Repentance that leads to salvation through the Blood of the Atonement and baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the true baptism that Unites us to God : not some rituals that developed later that only your Priests can preform. The Holy Spirit proved this by falling on Gentiles that were not even considered eligible to become Christians by your( First Pope) . Your RCC propaganda is sad and easily refuted.
Really loved this discussion! I love hearing people cordially discuss topics like this, and always come out learning something. I have immense respect for Dr. Ortlund already, but am now a big fan of Dr. Salkeld as well and am gonna have to read his book. Thank you so much for setting this up, Austin! We need more cordial dialogues like this!
I grew up Baptist and will never forget this event that speaks volumes about what Baptists really believe about the Bread and the Wine. I attended a youth revival trip and on Saturday afternoon, the ordained Baptist pastor leading us gathered us together on the floor of the church gymnasium. He passed around a big bag of Lay's potato chips and told us to each take one chip. Then he passed out Dixie cups and a bottle of Coca-Cola and asked us to pour ourselves a sip of Coke into the Dixie cups. Then he explained how the Lord's Supper is about SYMBOLS of Christ's Body and Blood (He meant tokens, not symbols, btw) and emphasised that it absolutely doesn't matter what we use to symbolise Christ's Body and Blood becuase they are just SYMBOLS. You'd think he'd be generous enough to respect the elements representing Our Lord to choose more respectful "symbols" but alas it was Coke and a potato chip. No prayer. No blessing. We were asked to close our eyes and thank Jesus for dying for us. Decades later, i attended a Baptist Cornerstone church that met in a warehouse. After 45 mins of way too-loud music and nearly an hour talk about the book of Titus, for cryin' out loud, folks around me started to move from the folding chair seats to the middle aisle. I thought the service was finished and i was eager to get out and go home but alas the service WAS over but on our way out each person present was pouring himself a cup of grape juice and pulling a chunk of bread off a round loaf. That's self-serve Holy Communion, which, of course, is an oxymoron. Take-home: No matter what a Baptist theologian says about spiritual presence, it might be good to judge by their praxis. One issue not touched on here that's germane is the use or not of the mass liturgy to bless the species before, during, and after the assembly receives.
Interesting, but not surprising. After the sixteenth century break from the Church, anyone could start their own religious group and design their own rituals. That is why we have thousands of non-Catholic " churches" now, and new ones being formed every day!
There are verses in the old testament that assures that the God will be with us... However, the Arc of the covenant had the real presence of God...It had the 10 commandments, the mannah, and the Aaron's rod....Mary, the arc of the new covenant bore the the word, the new mannah and the high priest...All three of these are necessary for the real presence..actually 4....The Scripture, the Eucharist and the Priest...and Mary is an inevitable part of this too...So there is no communion without one of these
I agree! Though it is hard to do that when 80-90% of the teaching is outside the bible ( in the 2 more important books: canon law & the catechism); and with Jesus' death being only 10% of salvation ( 9 other requirements according to catholic dogma), MANY other peopl e/saints/Mary/Pope/ priests giving instructions & dispensing grace & granting forgiveness. Jesus is so lost in the mix, & this is planned this way. Very sad ( with atrocities throughout history). I believe JESUS is the author & finisher of my faith!!! Not men or a manmade religion. TRUST JESUS -- he is THE way, THE truth, and THE life!
Well, my experience as a Catholic leaves me with no doubt that the Catholic Church teaching on the Eucharist is profoundly correct. There have been miracles related to it all over the world and in my own family related to the Blessed Sacrament. PROFOUND miracles related to the mass and the Sacrament itself. So, debates aside, interpretations, opinions, ideas, dialogues, or whatever, my family does not need any of it because we know by experience what the church teaches is indeed true. That is why the Sacrament is reserved with great care in the Tabernacle of every Catholic Church, because it IS Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, He has never left us. It is why we genuflect before the Tabernacle, the King is in it. There is no doubt. None. Based on all my family's personal experiences and signs and wonders of all kinds we have witnessed as Catholics. No way, none, would I ever challenge the teachings of the Catholic Chruch on the Eucharist, and the ordained priesthood needed to confect the sacrament. I would belong to no other religion, none could offer me the riches I have in the Catholic faith, and if I die a pauper on the side of the road, I die rich, wealthy beyond all measure in the treasures of the Catholic Church. It is my prayer for ALL Christians to enter the Catholic faith and answer the prayer of Jesus in the garden that ALL would be ONE so the world would believe. Such unity that Christ prayed for is a profound unity and it never results in discordant teachings, nor any authority outside that designated by Christ through His apostles and their successors. The king is the king, the guy with the keys is the keeper of the king's keys. Best wishes to all.
I was brought up Roman Catholic and going to the Scriptures and learning from them opened my eyes to the errors of Roman Catholicism. God is merciful, and He responds despite or our ignorance. God's purpose is to renew us by His Spirit not by any more sacrifices we can provide. God provided the one and only sacrifice necessary for our salvation namely what Jesus did on the cross of Calvary. I suggest you read the book of Hebrews, read it carefully. I am not taking you away from Christ, on the contrary I am guiding you to the real doctrine of salvation which exists in the Scriptures. To think Jesus's intentions was to leave His body, the church, in the hands of humans is a mistake. He is the head, and He leads His body, which we are, in obedience to Him. All this is accomplished by His Spirit not by any other means. I know you most likely will not accept what I am saying but go to the Scriptures and read for yourself as I did, you will recognize the errors of Roman Catholicism as you read.
@@fcastellanos57 If you do not consume the body and blood of the Lord you have NO life in you. NONE. Ponder that. Ponder your loss of the Blessed Sacrament. Your problem is you are confused with false teachings by those not competent to teach. I happen to know absolutely that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that the pope has the keys. I know it because unlike you, I follow the teachings of the Apostles, while you, being mislead, follow error. On the feast of Saint Kateri our holy oil was multiplied, this occurred after I spoke to Jesus in the tabernacle of church and asked Him specifically for the intercession of the Indian maiden. That miracle was accompanied by the scent of lilies. That is just ONE of the many many dozens of miracles that Jesus Christ has done for me, and others and ALWAYS in a Catholic context within the Catholic Church. Additionally miracles relative to the Most Blessed Sacrament, are well known in the church. To confect the Blessed Sacrament an ordained priesthood by the laying on of hands from the time of the Apostles is needed. None of that is available in the freelance world of the protestant experiment. Nor, can any coherent and unified teaching be found in that land. Protestants ordain women, openly practicing sinners who live homosexual lives, protestants teach divorce is allowed, protestants teach abortion is allowed, and finally they make their own bibles such as the Mormons, and others toss out books they do not like. Whenever a king leaves town he leaves someone in charge. That person is known historically as "the keeper of the keys"
@@johnjon1823 I do not follow whatever current exist in Protestantism, I read what the Scriptures say. Have you read John 7:37-39? where is it that we get rivers of living water from? read this carefully. John, who wrote this gospel says that Jesus meant this to be the Spirit those who believed in Him were to receive. Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit. We cannot test the truthfulness of anything by miraculous signs and wonders, there will be signs and wonders in the end time that will deceive many, we have to go by doctrine. The so call keys was not particularly given to Peter since Jesus also gave to the other disciples the power to loosen or tied. Jesus never left anyone in charge of His body, He is the head, and He is the one who directs it. Jesus did not relinquish His position as the good shepherd and gave it to a corrupt system. I am not leading you to something different than the gospel by saying what I am saying on the contrary, I am telling you this because I know the errors of Roman Catholicism.
@@fcastellanos57 You are a quintessential protestant since you impute to yourself all the power and authority needed to be your very own pope. Which you indeed are. Additionally you have your very own church on yourself. You are your own pope, that includes working out your version of what Jesus did by your own lights, and NOT those of the Apostolic church. You are your own infallible expert on what scripture says and means, including which books to include. Shameless pride and no faith in Jesus. Your faith is in your pretend Jesus. You are in rebellion to the king because you reject the king's authority to appoint Peter as the one with the keys, and you disregard history, traditions, and the on-going never interrupted action of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church. AND you reject the witness and testimony of those who KNOW you have it wrong and indeed can back it up by personal experience of the Lord Jesus and His sacraments. Not the least of which is His MANY and ongoing miracles in the Eucharist, through His saints, and in the body of the Catholic Church. You were never Catholic, since nobody who knows what the Catholic Church IS, would ever leave it. Repent, believe the actual good news. Or have no life in you, Mr. rejector of the Blessed Sacrament. It was Judas who rejected the Blessed Sacrament, He betrayed the Lord at the last supper because of it. MANY walked with Him no more YOU INCLUDED. Repent.
@@fcastellanos57 : You may have been brought up Catholic, but you have not been educated Catholic! How sad that you have fallen for these heretical ideas. I really hope that you take notice of John's advice here. He is telling you the truth, and I pray that you will have the wisdom to see it.
I appreciate these dialogues tremendously but sometimes I think it would be best for Catholics to answer the questions by referring straight to answers from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which are pretty clear on most of these questions that arise. It would definitely bring it to a more simplified level for viewers/listeners.
absolutely agree with you! There were times where it felt like they were discussing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” rather than the reality of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist. In some ways this discussion - at least from a Catholic perspective- felt weak, and at the same time over intellectualized as if discussing abstract ideas rather than a reality. The Catholic belief was not, in my opinion, clearly and unambiguously stated. We never sacrifice Truth for anything even ecumenism.
In meditating on the Eucharist during Adoration something occurred to me --- To have faith in Christs presence in that very Eucharist mirrors that of the incarnation (and in fact we are seeing a type of incarnation - encapsulated.) In this modern day we are offered the same proposal that the apostles were met with in their day - that God could come down from heaven and be "contained" in a corporeal form, in a finite bit of matter. For them it was a human body that spoke directly to them and performed miracles; For us it's unleavened bread that speaks to us in spirit and also performs miracles! To face that same challenge is breathtaking! To look at something of this world and truly believe that the vastness of God is condensed in that something - for a short time, to be physically present with us, and then to leave us. The entirety of the Gospel is present in that challenge! I don't doubt the Apostles looked at the man Jesus with the same nagging doubt that some of us still get when beholding the Eucharist - "Is that really God?"
Hi John, I think your point here is exactly what John 6 is about. Catholics too often skip the first part of that chapter, which is about the Incarnation of Jesus, and skip to the second, about the Eucharist. But John's point is clearly to link the two of them, as you do here. Best, Brett
@@brettsalkeld9735 Yes! John 6:40 "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” How could Christians existing after the resurrection look upon Him unless he remained with us physically / in some corporeal form. It's super fascinating to me that we aren't just left with the challenge of having faith in the historicity of the Gospels but also in the living daily incarnation of Christ in the Eucharist. It's sad to me that those with a different understanding of the Eucharist don't see that Christ is still with us BODILY. I think many Christians can agree on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but will they come to affirm that is truly Him bodily? I pray for it daily!
That may be the case for lots of Protestants. But personally, it's not a question of being comfortable accepting an incarnation. I just honestly don't think it's what the writers of the gospels and church epistles, including the fathers succeeding the apostles, taught. The fact that John 6 is unrelated to the last supper and John doesn't connect the two; the fact that none of thr synoptic gospels comment on a physical transformation; the fact that none of thr synoptic gospels connect the Eucharist to the old Testament to show the fulfillment of prophesy; the fact that none of the Jewish apostles objected to Jesus supposedly offering physical blood as a drink; the fact that Paul talks about the breaking of bread and wine without commenting on consecration or transformation into the Eucharist; the fact that not a single church father taught physical transformation; the fact that Catholics as early as the 9th century were debating the spiritual vs. physical presence without magisterial rebuke... All of those facts together make it really hard for me to see transubstantiation as original church teaching
@@sivad1025 You're comment is leaving the realm of transubstantiation and entering the real of doctrine development and Church authority. I'm not a theologian so I'll submit a few simple points... Why is it that Paul suggested that you eat and drink condemnation upon yourself if you should receive communion unworthily? Why did Tarsicius risk his life to bring the Eucharist to 3rd century Christian prisoners; and then give his life rather than abandon the Eucharist? Why were early Christians accused of cannibalism ? Why did the teachings of the Eucharist cause Jesus to lose so many followers at once (the only time this happens in the Gospel). These are just a few early examples from the early Church that the Eucharist transcends mere symbolism. As far as the development of doctrine, a great metaphor I've heard is that of the acorn and the oak tree. If you weren't there to experience its growth, you might suggest the acorn and the oak tree were unrelated organisms. In the same way the passage of time transforms the simple acorn, so it also does the living Church. The dogmas of the modern Church do exist as seed form in the early Church; they are just far more developed now. The teachings of Christ (many foreshadowed in the OT) reach maturity in His Church. Search out Brant Pitres "Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" for more on your question. Lastly, I suppose you would need to recognize the value, necessity, and truth of Apostolic succession and the Magisterium to be able to wade through conciliar disputes and heresy resolution. Every dogma of the faith has been challenged at some time. Many far earlier than the 9th century. You don't even need to accept the Church's teaching on authority to realize that the Magisterium is necessary. Natural Law (the limits of human co-operation) should make this clear on its own.
@@JohnBoyX570 I'm actually very much open to the papacy and magisterial authority. I even accept the validity of doctrinal development and acknowledge its necessity to add clarity to doctrines generating heresy. No one has an issue with Nicea declaring Jesus to be the second person of God. The issue with transubstantiation is that I'm not currently convinced that it adds clarification to existing doctrine. I think it reinvents doctrine that wasn't present in church tradition. To be clear, I don't think the Eucharist is _merely_ a symbol. Catholics like to strawman protestants because memorialism is easy to refute. I would accept "real presence" in the way Calvin did. The bread and wine physically remain bread and wine but they become the Eucharist through consecration and spiritually carry the body and blood of Christ. They act both as physical symbols and as vessels for the spiritual presence. This perfectly explains all your objections. If Christ's blood and body are spiritually present, it makes sense for Christians to treat the Eucharist with great reverence and Paul to condemn those taking it unworthily. It makes sense that the Christians were thought to be cannibals (they claimed to eat the body and blood of their savior) and it also makes sense that they _weren't_ cannibals. I think transubstantiation actually makes it hard to articulate that those criticisms were wrong. How is it not cannibalism if the substances have changed to human flesh and blood? I don't think John 6 is talking about the Eucharist in all honesty. John draws no connection to the Eucharist and he skip's the Last Supper despite spending the most time on passover. If you read John alone, you would have no concept of the Eucharist. This is especially the case since John 6 begins with Jesus describing himself as "the living bread." Obviously this is metaphorical so it stands to reason that "you shall eat my flesh" should be interpreted in light of the preceeding metaphor. Transubstantiation has absolutely no Biblical justification nor justification in the earliest church fathers. No where is a physical transformation described. Even Catholics admit that the earliest Christians treated the Eucharist with great mystery. I think the Catholic church erred by trying to unveil the mystery
I'm a Protestant Bible teacher and a student of theology. Gavin is the one who opened my eyes to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist rather than a mere commemorative exercise--first in his response to Francis Chan and then his review of Thomas Watson's book on the Lord's supper. Anyone interested can look up these videos, especially the second one which is more in-depth. I was never taught what the bread and wine was FOR, but only what it was NOT. Oh, and by the way, if you take it unworthily you may end up sick or dead. what a joy it has been to respond to the invitation of Jesus to come to the table. For it is there that I receive strengthening grace. I only wish I had known this 50 years ago.
As much as I hate to mess up the six hundred sixty-six comments on GOSPEL SIMPLICITY (let the reader understand), I must express my gratitude for the views you bring to your channel, Austin. I found Dr. Ortlund's reading of Catholicism in your solo interview with him to be needlessly ill-based or perhaps bad faith, but recontexualized into an interrogation of Catholic positions as articulated by a Catholic, I found him a much more engaging interlocutor. Many thanks to Dr. Salkeld for his approachable Catholicism; may I be so approachable.
Wow. An amazing, enlightening conversation. I am an ordained Anglican now operating as a pastor between various evangelical/Charismatic and Pentecostal churches here in Cape Town ... seeking greater unity based upon the essentials of our common faith, our love of Jesus and commitment to His call to be what we are, One, as He and the Father are one in the Spirit. So I loved the openness, mutual respect, eagerness to listen and work through thorougly, things that keep us apart. So unity is a very high priority for me. However never at the cost of Truth or the diminishing what is the Gospel. So for me the Real Presence is not the main issue. But what seems to me to undermine the Cross and Centerpiece of our Salvation and Relationship with the Trinity, is the Mass as sacrifice either by the priest or as sometimes exoressed, by Christ in the Mass. I have tried frequently in various contexts (personal meetings, researching online and listening to CZcams convos,etc) to really get what Catholics are saying about the Mass. What I would like to hear (as an Evangelical) is how do Catholics deal with Hebrews ch's 7-11 where the point so forcefully emphasised by the Author is not just that the sacrifice on the Cross was not just 'once-for-all' but that it can never be repeated. And that if it is that indicates that any act of repetition "CANNOT TAKE AWAY SIN" So then it is not so much about whether the Mass is bloodless or not but does it in anyway re-sacrifice or re-offer Christ. And here is where I struggle. I so appreciate Brett's attempt to soften this problem (Btw I think it was this very issue that led to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in the 16th Century to reverse his recantation and go to his death being burned alive rather than give any ground on the Finished Work of the Cross.) But the talk about our application, participation and the experiencing of the sacrifice at the Mass only fudges this issue for me. Trent it seems does not fudge this issue. Neither did Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope at the ARCIC conference. When it comes to the Cross we cannot give an uncertain sound in our proclamation ....especially at the Eucharist! So please can we get more clarity on this in order the Christ be better glorified!
As a Catholic while I find Dr. Salkeld to be incredibly knowledgeable and passionate on this subject - it's clear that he fell incredibly short on two key points that really disappointed me. 1. His point that the church doesn't treat Anglican Bishops as men playing dress up - therefore it can be speculated that the Church mysteriously recognizes some form of Protestant ordination in my opinion simply doesn't compute how the Catholic Church understands itself, not to mention how the Catholic understands the importance of Apostolic Succession. His speculation is almost akin to saying that if you squint hard enough it's possible that the Church can someday mysteriously recognize homosexual couples as being a real marriages. 2. Dr. Ortlund rightly cornered Dr. Salkeld on the topic of the anathemas of Trent. Dr. Salkeld's position that the anathema simply meant "Catholics aren't allowed to deny Transubstantiation as an 'option' for explaining the Eucharist" is most certainly a re-interpretation of the anathema at the service of ecumenical dialogue rather then an honest good faith understanding of what it means. Ecumenical Dialogue is wonderful and important - so it was incredibly disappointing to see Dr. Salkeld justify his 'watering down' of Catholic teaching by appealing to obscure letters from a previous pope (while he was only a cardinal btw). Letters of a previous pope don't have the authority to override Magisterial statements and anathemas - if Dr. Salkeld agrees with this then I don't understand his appeal to those Ratzinger letters
Excellent point! That was my take as well. When they asked “what must a Catholic affirm about the Eucharist “ he really struggled to affirm anything other than a change takes place. When we receive the Eucharist the priest says “the body of Christ” we say amen. At least affirm that it is the body of Christ!
I saw it pretty much that way too. It was more a conversation about ecumenism than Eucharist. I wish he had gotten someone who could have explained the Jewish roots of the sacrament and it's connection to the covenant. Ecumenism is interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the depth and beauty of the Eucharist. I would like to have heard the Catholic view without compromise from someone like Brant Pitre or Lawrence Feingold.
I love how both guests have a thorough understanding of each other's traditions, how they respect each other, and how they find so much common ground! I, a Reformed Christian, once visited a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in a town that I had moved to. They had a card in the pews for visitors to sign if they agreed and wanted to take communion. The card talked about real presence. I agreed, signed it, and partook of the sacrament. After the service the priest asked my about my church affiliation and told me I should not have taken communion because Reformed Christians do not believe in the real presence. I tried to tell him that Reformed Christians do use the term "real presence", but he wasn't having it. He was nice about it. He said I was welcome to attend services but without taking communion. I didn't go back.
He wasn't a priest, he was a Lutheran pastor. Thus, he had no priestly authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Resurrected Christ. It remained what it was, bread and wine.
@@alhilford2345in my perspective Jesus is incarnate Spirit of God and not soul , it is written in Luke " the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you , therefore also that holy one who is born will be called the son of God " , the holy Spirit incarnate in the womb of mother Mary by the power of the most high .
@@ivanniyeha4229 Jesus has a soul according to His _fully_ human nature (body and soul), he of course is "Spirit" also according to His divine nature, insofar as God is Spirit. The Church has rejected Apollinarianism as a heresy in 381.
Did anyone else notice that Dr. Ortlund directed the host to change the subject when "how the leftover consecrated hosts are disposed of" was mentioned?
Gospel Simplicity thank you for having Dr.Ortlund. His clarity is unequal. Because of him I proudly called myself a protestant, And am so at ease and confident in my decision to leave the roman catholic church.
That’s not good man, I’ll pray you don’t separate yourself from Christ in that way. Not a good call to rely on your own theological judgement. Dr Ortlund says one thing, but most Protestants don’t agree with him - who is to say who is right? You’re getting onto the boat of relativism there
I went to a Lutheran service in Jerusalem a few years back, and they were handing the eucharistic leftovers out to passing Muslims at the West Front after it was over!
that would be heresy. thats maybe bleesed bread or something (I hope it is) but communion was never shared to nonChristians/non baptized, from apostolic times till now, even from Lutherans as i know.
A very fair and edifying debate. I can NEVER cease to insist on this point, my catholic and protestant brothers: What divide us is not our different theologies, but mostly our arrogance.
It's true that things are "amped up" as time goes by-- and I think that's why the Catholic church developed Transubstantiation in the first place. It's an accretion, I believe, and it came about more and more as the priesthood became more and more enhanced, and the common priesthood of all believers became less and less stressed.
I think Dr. David Anders is a better Catholic theologian than your Catholic guest. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus whether one believes it or not!
"the very precise technical definition of substance in Thomas is: that which is present to the intellect" I myself thought that for Thomas substance seems like a mental and logical category and if that is so, that would place his view of real presence firmly within the realm of subjectivity, which is something that Catholics like to express as objectionable within protestantism, which I find kind of ironic.
Great dialogue, I really enjoyed it to a point. I have a few comments and questions: 1) Why is the Catholic Church always the ones who have to defend their positions, but the same scrutiny is never applied to difficult protestant positions such as predestination? 2) I disagree with the notion Catholics have to move towards protestants in their stance on the eucharist and priestly orders. Why should we apologize for believing the eucharist is only valid by Catholic priests and apostolic succession? There is a difference between respecting a priest or bishop in another Christian denomination as a fellow believer in Christ and saying that they are the same. The stance I believe Dr. Salkeld is taking is the Church is moving to a position that there is no difference. This is a mistake, and I can state many reasons why this might be the case. 3) Ecumenical discussions should be about clarifying our differences rather than an opportunity to apologize for Catholics beliefs as I felt Dr. Salkeld did on certain points. To his credit, at no point did Dr. Ortlund apologized or excuse protestant positions but did a good job of clearly stating his position. 4) Dr. Ortlund brought up Catholic beliefs that certain protestant positions place them outside of what we consider Christian beliefs. Dr. Salkeld made lots of excuses to which Dr. Ortlund expressed his appreciation. At no point, however, was there ever any mention of strong protestant positions on Catholics such as Catholics commonly referred to as the "whore of Babylon", Catholics are not Christian, or are idolaters, etc., which I heard all my life by Baptists. Again, another example of what I see as an "ecumenical dialogue" as being a very one-sided discussion and poor Catholic apologetics.
After ascension of Jesus into heaven, the apostles went forth to preach the Gospel everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word through accompanying signs. This hard Catholic doctrine and practices from apostolic succession which many protestants accuse as man made tradition is a real sacred mystery. I used to ponder on following two lines on the hymn 'Tantum Ergo Sacramentum' used for be sung during Eucharistic Adoration: "... Senses cannot grasp this marvel, faith must serve you compensate" Eucharistic celebration of Catholic Church through the anointed hands of it's Bishops and priests, and invoking Holy Spirit for transubstantiation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood to serve as our spiritual food and drink is a sacred and profound moment in Christian faith to provide spiritual strength during our spritual journey. As manna in the desert fell from heaven, this bread came down from heaven, born in Bethlehem, the house of bread, multiplied bread and finally gave us His own body as real food, to be able to remain both in physical and spiritual union with Him. God faithfully continues to confirm His words through His one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church till today and to the end of time as He assured.
Not to sound flippant, but as a Byzantine Catholic I am glad I can just fall back on Eastern sensibilities and say; yeah, it's mysterious 😉🙏 Great talk guys!
@@MrPeach1 yeah. I was not trying to be dismissive of the need for reasoning through belief. Though I a was kidding around, I know a lot of this is very hard for the average lay Catholic to digest. I have been studying a lot of this for a while now, and much of it still makes my head swim. It is good to be able to retreat within my meditations and just accept that Christ came to from His heavenly thrown to feed me both spiritually and physically. It's truly awesome and inspirational to know His love is so boundless that he humbles Himself to the form of simple elements to feed His people. I would add to something that neither of the good doctors seemed to hit on but perhaps danced around the idea that I think many Catholics forget; the Eucharist is both a sacrifice, AND a meal. We should remember that Jesus and His Apostles we're celebrating the Passover Seder at the time of His Sacramental institution. This is something that is very important to us in the East. Even if you cannot receive Christ's Precious Body and Blood, whether it's out of non-preparedness or that you are not Catholic, the priest will still give you a portion of the blessed bread that has not been consecrated so that everyone can partake in the meal.
I wonder if protestants accepted transubstantiation as a valid option even if we disagree, would catholics return the favor? That is, would they lift their anathema against those who deny transubstantiation and say that spiritual presence is a valid option even if it falls short of the fullness of the truth in their opinion?
I appreciate Brett’s desire to find commonality but It seemed like he was afraid to say anything that implied disagreement. Wish he would have stated the Catholic side more clearly
I agree. There is still the opportunity to expose more clearly the Eucharist understanding of the RCC. I would suggest to invite Trent Horn, Scott Hahn or Brant Pitre to discuss about the Eucharist.
If the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…. Someone please tell me WHY did the crowd that day in John ch 6 leave Christ that day and never return???? Pastor Ortlund, why??? Why would they be so offended??? It’s bc Jesus meant what He said and THEY knew it! It was a Hard saying! It is very clear!
I am surprise with that Dr. Salkeld said so many things i did not know about Catholicism and that Dr. Ortlund is not fully anti-catholic theologically.
There are several understandings of the mystery of how Christ is present in the bread and wine. Perhaps have an Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran theologian discuss their positions on the subject. There is no one view of the topic from post Reformation churches .
I understand that we always need to be kind and unity is important, but Truth cannot be compromised. We should not be afraid of being honest, sincere, and truthful about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. We should not make excuses or try to pretend we “need to move forward” to something the Church does not teach, ie. Communion cannot happen if there is not an ordained priest. If Dr. Ortlund wants to be recognize by the Church then he is welcomed home and he can participate in the sacrament. Absolute Truth is real whether your feelings are hurt.
Interesting. Really trying to understand, doesn’t the RCC acknowledge that many Protestants have received legitimate baptism, as long as the formula was correct? But wouldn’t your critique hold against that sacrament as well, since most Protestants were not baptized by ordained priests?
@@NomosCharisA priest is not necessary for baptism. That’s why as long as a Protestant is baptized in the trinity it’s valid. But for the Eucharist a Priest is necessary.
@@NomosCharis some sacraments don’t have to have a priest conducting it. Like I mentioned early, baptism can be conducted without a priest as long as the baptism was done in the Trinity. But the ordinary way of doing a baptism would be done by a priest. Other sacraments do require a priest like Eucharist, confession, etc… this wouldn’t make the sacraments divided.
Just to be clear, the Lutheran view isn't that Christ is "locally/physically present", nor that our 'feasting' on Him can occur apart from a faith-union. We would essentially agree with the Thomist position that Christ is (and must be for Gospel assurance) present objectively in in a sacramental/spiritual mode in the elements and not merely "in the heart by faith", but that apart from faith we cannot benefit from His sacramental presence but instead are cursed unto judgement. It depends on what you mean by "partake of Christ", all receive him by the mouth objectively, but there is no "partaking" in the sense of participation and benefit without faith. I believe even Calvin leaned toward affirming the objective presence, if I recall correctly.
As cordial and thoughtful as Gavin is he has no answer for the differences between catholic and protestants let alone between those protestant denominations. It always comes down to authority and since there is no authority every one does what is right in their own eyes.
Thanks! As a Catholic it bothers me that sometimes it seems like modern Catholics are trying to walk back so much of what was said in the past. Gavin seems to recognize this. Modern Catholics seem to be looking for "escape hatches" for hard sayings. It would have been interesting to hear some points on worshiping the Eucharist.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Many are called but few are chosen comes to mind. Many could get the impression that being saved is common for Catholics and non-Catholics alike by how this topic is spoken about today. I don't know how many are and are not but the Bible doesn't make it seem common.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 1:13:50 Dr. Ortlund explains his concern of Canon 2 of the 13th session of the Council of Trent which states… ”If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” Dr. Ortlund expresses that he himself believes Transubstantiation to be a possibility on the table, but personally denies the change of the whole substance of the bread and wine and explains because of this, the Council of Trent is saying he is anathematized. Dr. Salkeld responds by what seems to be “walking back” the statement of Trent, seemingly trying to tell Dr. Ortlund he isn’t necessarily anathamatized, and that might not be what the Council of Trent actually meant. This is an example of what the OP Jonathanbohl4509 meant when he said it bothers him when modern Catholics attempt to “walk back” plain and harsh statements made by the Roman Catholic Church in the past. It troubles me as well since I do a lot of work in Mormon theology and history. Their institution is experiencing a similar dilemma as the RC Church. They have very explicit historical documents anathematizing anyone who isn’t Mormon and doesn’t 100% agree with their theology, but now have Mormon apologists attempting to “walk back” the statements to make their church seem less harsh and more accepting.
I go to Church in Astana, where Bishop Athanasius Schneider, among others, celebrates the Holy Mass. He's extremely serious about the Eucharist and the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. He explains that people should only take the bread directly into the tongue form the priest so as to avoid tiny crumbles of Jesus' body being scattered on our hands, clothes and on the floor. His conviction and coherent attitude make a lot of difference.
So all of a sudden Jesus is defiled if his body comes into contact with the ground. The very same ground he walked for three decades without considering being defiled then. So why is he defiled now?
@@michaelanderson4849 I think you are missing the point. It's not that Jesus is defiled (how could God ever be defiled??), it's just sacrilegious from us not to be careful while participating to the central event of Holy Mass, the very moment when Jesus initiates the New Covenant.
I was fortunate enough to attend a Pontifical Mass celebrated by Bishop Schneider. He’s such a humble man. I’m reading his book The Catholic Mass and he’s so thorough and insightful, yet so simple.
Muito bom diálogo. Foi um excelente complemento ao livro que acabei de ler agora: "The Lord's Supper", do Dr. Keith Mathison. Continuo a ter minha perspectiva Reformada, igual à do Gavin, mas quero continuar aprofundando meu conhecimento sobre a teologia eucarística católica
My adorable Jesus, May our feet journey together. May our hands gather in unity. May our hearts beat in unison. May our souls be in harmony. May our thoughts be as one. May our ears listen to the silence together. May our glances profoundly penetrate each other. May our lips pray together To gain mercy from the Eternal Father. Amen.
Dr. Ortlund, as a follow up to your statement that you don't believe it dishonors Christ to dispose of Eucharistic Gifts after the Eucharistic celebration is finished, do you believe that the method of disposal matters for something that was used for a holy purpose? Would you say it is better to avoid throwing the Gifts in the garbage if possible, or does it not matter in your view?
This was an excellent discussion. I really liked Dr. Salkeld's approach to transubstantiation being a valid expression or explanation of the mystery. But I share Dr. Ortlund's concern that this approach is not actually what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Happy to be told otherwise, but I get the impression from the "one true church" argument that you have to accept all the (current) official teachings of the church. Is this what the catechism says? It just seems like you can't have it both ways.
As a Lutheran, it would have been interesting to hear a Lutheran (Jordan Cooper maybe?) involved in this conversation since we’re sort of the third leg on the tripod that is western Eucharistic real presence theology, though I can see how that would probably have made the conversation too unruly to get through in under six hours.
Haha, your closing comment hits the nail on the head. It's always a tricky balance between representing multiple views and not making videos too long and unruly. As it is, this is already the longest video I've ever uploaded
As far as the Mass being a sacrifice - A re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross through time in Sacramental form, several things should be said. The old testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in the form of bread and wine and that those elements would be used. Melchisedech - the king of Salem and a priest offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Genesis 14-18). Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek“, that is offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. Christ being a priest in the order of Melchizedek means in the manner of Melchizedek. The priest sacrifices the items offered (in this case bread and wine) - that is the main task of all priests in all cultures at all times, so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizadeck sacrificed. Now we know that non blood sacrifices are not acceptable according to the old covenant. So the sacrifice of bread and wine, must somehow be a real blood sacrifice. This is exactly what was predicted in the old testament. The prophet Malachi predicted a new sacrifice that would be offered in every place “from the rising of the sun even to the going down my name is great among the gentiles; and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation” (Malachi 1:10-11) . Notice that the prophet speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices but one that is offered everywhere. The sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from Calvary (but not separate from Calvary) one that is given under the form of bread and wine. Only the mass meets these requirements. (Reasoning taken from Karl Keatings book Catholicism and fundamentalism). Former protestant pastor and theologian Scott Hahn gives an excellent biblical explanation of how the Mass (or the Lords supper) is a re presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary through time in his book “the supper of the Lamb”. A more easy read is an article easily found on line by this author called “Hunt for the fourth cup”. The article gives a fine biblical explanation of how the Last supper and the sacrifice of Calvary are one sacrifice - in the order of Melchizedek . Really more than can be gone into here - but well worth the read for those interested in how these things work biblically. I have thought of it in this way - same as “the two become one flesh” - and are completely United in marriage - so we are United to the bridegroom (Christ) as we - the bride - become one flesh with our savior every time we receive him. And more than one flesh - we are United both in flesh and spirit! And consider this - If the old covenant foreshadows the new (the new being a glorious fulfillment of the old) - in the old covenant the eating of the lamb was required to consummate the covenantal bond between God and His people. Similarly - the manna “from heaven” was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If the Eucharist is only a symbol - the manna would be more glorious than what it foreshadowed - and we know this cannot be the case since the fulfillment must by definition be more glorious than what foreshadowed it. Why would it be any different in the new covenant? Indeed The old covenant finds it fulfillment in the new covenant and just like the old covenant, we eat the lamb. This is why the language in John 6 is so graphic - when Christ commands his followers to eat his body the actual verbs are “ chew” and “knaws”. Is it any wonder that he was taken so literally? Or that folks at the time took Him literally? Also consider this - This is the very doctrine that Judas rejected Christ on as the scripture points out that he knew that all of them didn’t believe the doctrine and who would betray him (John 6:64). Finally - just my non theologian thought - it strikes me that those who are reformed seem to have great difficulty whenever matter mixes with pure spirit as if God doesn’t use matter (such as the Eucharist) as real vehicles of grace. But if the incarnation means anything - it certainly means that God who became one of us uses matter as a vehicle of Grace. As Saint Peter says He became a partaker of our humanity so that we may become a partaker of his divinity (2:Peter 1:4- paraphrase).
Protestant communion isn't to be worshipped or adored. This doesn't mean Protestant communion is useless. I will just never worship it or cry if it fell onto the ground. Or care for every crumb. Or put it in a golden tabernacle. Or bow before it. Or die for it. However I am not Protestant. I worship Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Consecrated hosts are frequently stolen from churches to be desecrated by satanic groups. These Satanists obviously consider the Catholic Eucharist to be the Body of Christ.
Protestant here, and a debating one at that, thank you so very much for facilitating such a rigorous and thoughtful discussion. I have been somewhat discouraged by the dearth of dialogue at this level between Catholics and Protestants on these immensely important areas of doctrine. It has unfortunately been my experience thus far, that the fault for that lies more on the Protestant side; there seems to be a more straw-manning on this side of the Tiber. That said, do you know of any good Catholic engagements with the doctrine of total depravity?? I have not yet found one, and it seems to me to be a major supporting column in the Protestant framework, particularly in reference to the validity of Sola Fide. I think it may be a philosophically untenable position, given that it seems to undermine our confidence in the very concept of moral judgment.
Glad you enjoyed it! I do not know of any Catholic engagement with the topic, though that certainly doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's not really something I've looked for
What an outstanding conversation! Protestant here who is gaining appreciation for these dialogues. If this is possible, what else is possible? May this prove a hopeful sign of marvelous things to come.
I’m Catholic and I have to say I really respect and appreciate Gavin.
Gavin was clear, well-prepared, concise, confident, calm, and articulate. Gavin looked calm and thoughtful, pure in spirit to express his thoughts in clear language and understanding. Gavin emailed both men in preparation of the interview, pure intentions from a man hoping to give clear information. Gavin, thank you for being prepared, articulating so well your thoughts on a very important topic and representing Protestants in a dignified, well-meaningful and loving way.
Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Salkeld, thank you both so much for this discussion. I am a Catholic, formerly Presbyterian, and I deeply appreciate your mutual respect and candor. I learned so much from listening to you both! And thank you, Austin, for organizing and facilitating this wonderful exchange. May God bless you all in your ministries, and may Truth indeed unite us to Himself and one another.
one thing that I thought would be clear in the discussion but from reading comments evidently might be useful to clarify: "spiritual presence" does not mean "non-physical presence." It simply means the Spirit effects the union between Christ and the elements. Thomas and Calvin are agreed on that point. It seems this language trips people up so hopefully this clarifies! :)
At the time of the Reformation when the Lutherans were warding off what became known as Crypto Calvinism, two questions were focused on to test whether or not a theologian's views addmitted a *real* Real Presence. They are:
(1) What is received with the mouth in the eating and drinking?
(2) What is received by the unworthy communicant?
The Reformed position, as I understand it, would answer (1) with Bread and Wine and (2) Bread and Wine. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. If I'm correct, respectfully, I fail to see how spiritual presence means something other than non-physical or can be called Real Presence.
I'm not partial to the language of Real Presence for this very reason: It is ambiguous enough to make it sound as though the Reformed position approaches what, say, a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic means when they say "Christ's body and blood is eaten and drunk in the Holy Communion." The Formula of Concord speaks of the True and Substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. Luther simply calls the Bread Christ's Body and the Wine his Blood.
I know the language of Empty Sign can be an offense, but this seems to me to be the case of the Reformed position. I'm happy to be corrected.
Again, said with respect to you, Dr. Ortlund.
@@marcuswilliams7448 thanks Marcus. You are right on those two questions. The answer is bread and wine on (2) because only those united to Christ can feast upon a Christ, from a Reformed perspective. The unbeliever is like the bottle with the cork on top that cannot receive any water. That doesn't make it an empty sign, I'd argue, any more than baptism is an empty sign because the hypocrite is not regenerated while baptized. An "effective sign" is not one that works regardless of the recipient's posture and openness. The answer on (1) is a little tricky but you're right that we do hold that the organ of reception the entire body and soul, not just the mouth, and that it is fundamentally a spiritual reception achieved through a physical act. So, you could say the answer is just bread and wine to (1) as well, *though* there are senses in which we could say it is more.
My point was more modest: just to clarify that the adjective "spiritual" does not mean non-physical. We think the Spirit effects union between the elements and Christ's *physical* body and blood. I think some people out there here the word "spiritual" and think this means Christ is only present in his divine nature, or in some vague way. Again, Thomas and Calvin are pretty similar on this point.
@@TruthUnites Right. The Lutheran Confession is not that the unbeliever eats and drinks beneficially, he eats and drinks judgment to himself, but precisely for the reason that in his unworthy reception, he sins against the Body and Blood of Christ, present with the Bread Wine. It isn't that Christ's Body and Blood are, in themselves, poison. However, they are received in judgment by the unworthy because of their unworthiness.
In other words, God's presence isn't yet good news, nor beneficial. God's presence *for you*, however, is beneficial and received by faith. The Parable in Mt 25 illustrates this well enough. It is the self-same Christ, present before the Sheep and the Goats, who graciously welcomes one group and condemns and sends away the other.
Finally, I would say, your position, if it does, indeed, deny that, with the mouth, the body and blood of Christ is eaten and drunk cannot, at the same time, assert that Christ is physically joined to the elements; unless such words signify something other than what they sound like.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Thanks marcus. Yes, I understand the Lutheran view of eating and drinking judgment. We'd say the unbeliever is eating and drinking judgment as well, but not feasting on Christ. On your final point, we don't deny that the mouth is the organ by which the spiritual eating is occasioned. This is why Calvin so strongly objected to simply adoring the host and insisted on consuming. But we think the ultimate incorporation of Christ in the Eucharist is via the entire body and soul (hence "spiritual eating"). Also to clarify, we don't say Christ is "physically" joined to the elements, as you put it, and neither would Thomas Aquinas. We do say his physical flesh is spiritually united to the elements. Geez, this gets nuanced, doesn't it?
@@TruthUnites thanks for explaining this: as one who first heard of Luther's view in my church history class at Biola University and knew instantly that there is more to the Lord's supper than just my Baptist memorial view that I had grown up with.
My view would be the same or very similar to your comment here.
"The person who partakes worthily is truly feasting upon Christ and upon his presence" As an Orthodox Christian I would add that in the Orthodox Church, despite the state of your soul and your participation in repentance, YOU ARE receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and it will either establish you or destroy you. So I would argue that Christ is present no matter what state your soul is in....the question then becomes are you repentant and will you be healed? Or are you unrepentant, continuing in your sin, and be judged and destroyed? The physical presence of Jesus Christ isnt dependent on the state of your individual soul. He is present regardless.
During my convertion from atheism to Catholicism, on Christmas 2020 I (stupidly) participated to the Eucharist not knowing (maybe just suspecting) that, as the Bishop of my city some time later explained, it is a grave sin to do so if one doesn't truly believe in the physical presence of Jesus and hasn't confessed recently. I'll add that to my long list of sins I'm preparing for my first confession in 42 years.
@@kansashoneybadger7899 That's a remarkable coincidence (?). After unworthily attending the Eucharist on Christmas 2020, I had by far the worst year of my life in terms of physical and mental health in 2021, with several new problems starting and old problems coming back or getting much worse. For most of the year I had problems with my teeth, joints and muscles, hormonal deficiencies (which caused depression and a severe deterioration of my mental faculties), they found white matter lesions in my brain, got prostate enlargement, urinary infections, covid (the mildest of all problems, but it added to the rest) and my usual chronic cough, which in the past 20 years has lasted two to three months each year, continued for as long as six months. I was always quite a strong and healthy person till 2021 - apart from some back and knee pain and the chronic cough, all other issues were new.
The question then is, does the unrepentant sinner become more judged and more destroyed by partaking unworthily or are they the same judged and same destroyed as they already were/are?
@@vaderetro264 Why will your first confession be in 42 years?
@Deborah Faith Thompson oh yeah hehehe Guess I wasn't very bright there. It sounded like in the future for some reason for me. Thanks.
This was one of the most fantastic interviews I’ve ever heard.
So glad to hear that!
I totally agree! We talk a lot about presence and who is authorized to preside at the Eucharist, but few things are really out there outlining the idea of sacrifice. Thanks for this!
Wow I must say my mouth dropped open listening to Dr. Ortlund's opening answer/statement. I must say I don't think I've ever encountered a Baptist, and nearly my entire family are, that espouses anything but a strictly memorialist view. I still smile at people I meet today who think Calvin hung the moon but have no clue that he believed in a spiritual presence view.
Great and productive discussion here as always. Praying for everyone to have a very blessed Lent.
@@kansashoneybadger7899 I'm not a Calvinist at all myself. I actually am leaning strongly towards the Orthodox point of view on a lot of topics, but many friends and family of mine are Southern Baptist and the teachings of John Calvin, one of the protestant reformers, have experienced a huge resurgence in the SBC over the last 10 years or so. It's relevant because one of the guests in the video is Baptist, representing the Baptist point of view.
@@bassguitar1919 O.k. I'll admit my comment was a tad crude. I found myself in a spot I had to explore Christian theology to determine where to g after Protestantism. I knew I wanted to remain Christian, there was never a question there. So, the question, which I should have posed is this: Given that person is a sincere enquirer who is looking for the Truth as taught by Christ, now in the 21st Century. Why would Calvin have any particular authority? Why should I have looked to Calvin for answers? The Eastern Orthodox concept of "authority" relates to Apostolic Succession and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers lived within a few generations of the Apostles. Clement followed Peter during the joint lifetimes. St. Ignatius followed Polycarp in their joint lifetimes. Polycarp followed St. John during their joint lifetimes. Given that perspective the fact that a cleric in Geneva Switzerland acquired a following of people in the 1500's or 1600's, means nothing to me as an EO. Also, as lovely as most Baptists are as people, the fact that their leadership chose to follow Calvin, as opposed to
St. Ignatius, Clement, St. Athanasius, St. Irenaeus, and the Cappadocian Fathers
means virtually nothing to me. No offense meant, hope none is taken.
Remember also that the Reformers: Calvin, Zwingli, Luther and Melancthon, split into 7 different theological directions within a year of 1519 and the 95 thesis.
I was raised in a Baptist church and didn't hear of Luther's position until my church history class at a Protestant University were the three major views were stated: I knew instantly that there was a Spiritual Presence as well as just the memorial view: both are applicable.
I still reject the RCC view because of the poor RCC interpretations that the Roman Catholics use to defend their distinctives ; that miss the Jewish 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that Jesus taught in Matthew and John.
Funny how the RCC state Peter as their first Pope but Paul was there with Peter at Rome and the RCC rejects his teachings on Grace and The Holy Spirit's baptism in Titus 2:11-15 ; 3:4-8.
@@davidjanbaz7728 those are some of the reasons I tend to lean towards Orthodoxy.
@@bassguitar1919 LOL:funny it's the orthodox that declare Protestants as heretics!
Oooohhhhh yes! I am really looking forward to this dialogue between these 2 amazing people! I am a Protestant, and I never had heard of the term Eucharist until I began watching your channel. Many of your guests here on Gospel Simplicity have helped widen my understanding of…what I’ve known as communion. Thank you for bringing this dialogue together for this interview! Can’t wait!
@Continually Curious. If you like to find out more about the Eucharist, you may like to explore Scott Hahn who has produced a few amazing videos and writings on the Eucharist. I would like to share with you 2 of his videos
czcams.com/video/REQ9SX0nVAo/video.html
czcams.com/video/bIKWtd62cAk/video.html
@@jeremiahong248 awesome thank you!^_^
You can look in to The Eucharist Miracles , meby it will help you and read John 6: 45 - 66 and listen with you hear to what Jesus is saying 🙏
61
I Am Present in the Eucharist despite the misinterpretation of My Promise
Thursday, April 14th, 2011 @ 00:05
My dearly beloved daughter, do not worry. You are improving in the way you are setting time aside in prayer to Me. Now it is important that man understands that in order to come closer to My Heart, he must understand the need to receive the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.
Many people, including other Christian groups, deny My Real Presence in the Eucharist. Why they have decided to deny the promises I made at My Last Supper, where I promised I would give My Flesh and Blood as Food and Nourishment for your souls, is unclear. What is clear is that the Miracle of the Holy Eucharist, Present in all Tabernacles all over the world, Exists today, and is there to fill your poor, undernourished and empty souls with My Presence. This Presence will strengthen you in ways, that, were you to miss receiving Me once you get used to this, you will feel lost.
Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made during My Crucifixion, where I would be Present in Bread and Wine and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls. Too much human reasoning has meant that I have been rejected by even well meaning Christians. These same Christians cannot receive the Holy Eucharist in its True Form. The Most Holy Eucharist was given to you all as a great Gift for your redemption and salvation. By rejecting the fact that I Am Present, means that you are forfeiting special graces, which are part of a pact to bring Me even closer into your hearts. Remember, when I died for you, it was to lead you to towards eternal life and salvation. Receive Me as the Living Presence and your souls will alight in ways you would not have believed possible. Turn back to receiving My Body and Blood. Let Me remove your doubts. This is one of the biggest mistakes Christians have made, by denying Me entry to their souls in this way. It greatly offends My Eternal Father because of the Sacrifice involved to save your souls. Let Me bring Light and nourishment into your lives. You will be more inclined to accept the Truth of My Teaching after The Warning takes place.
Remember what I promised during My Last Supper that when you take the bread and wine it will become for you My Body and My Blood.* Any other interpretation has been distorted by human logic and reasoning. Now understand and accept the Truth.
Your loving Saviour, Jesus Christ
*For clarification on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation please refer to the Message given on Friday, June 1, 2012 08:15 PM
“When the antichrist devours all religions the only weapons which he will be powerless against is the Holy Mass and the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into My Body and Blood, in the Holy Eucharist.”
@@hcho7776 Oh, dear. It always raises my hair when someone puts words in the mouth of our Lord whether they are Protestant or Catholic.
Praying for unity. I was very moved by the quote from Ratzinger. As a protestant heading toward the RCC, I believe communion isnt just play acting as a protestant. I think if we as see as Ortlund said Christ in each one of us we can move toward unity.
Glad for this perspective!
There was unity until Luther... something to think about... God bless.
@@forwardechoes well, there had always been divisive figures. luther just happened to be successful
@@marvalice3455 True... But the fact remains, before him, there was unity.
@@forwardechoes Because people like Jan Hus who tried to reform were put to death by the church. That's not unity in my mind.
Great discussion. Really enjoyed the relaxed vibe from Dr. Brett, great balance for Dr. Gavin. I enjoy how knowledgeable they are. Let’s keep the conversation going! Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict, are soo good. Much Love a from South American Catholic. Our Father, here’s your church. Thank you for these men sharing their knowledge about Your Church. Unite us in your Love. Bring us all Home. love you, my Love. Amen
Catholic here. Love Christ in Eucharist, the New Manna from heaven 😇😇😇
It’s amazing how much Gavin spoke highly of Aquinas and how often Brett spoke highly of Luther. Great discussion. If all ecumenical dialogue happened this way, I feel as if reunion might be possible!
I don't mean to be mean, but I must say this is the first Catholic theologian or apologist that seems like they are genuinely trying to be honest. It always seems like they are twisting words, or creating straw Men, or misrepresenting. This person actually answered the questions honestly and was willing to admit when there were some gray areas that don't really make sense. I was Catholic for 30 years before converting. This man at least gives me some hope that some Catholics are actually thinking about these important matters and recognizing that there are some serious theological problems with Catholic teaching.
What caused you to convert to Protestantism?
@@aydentrevaskis8390 I read Scripture with an open mind and open heart.
@@staza1 I converted the exact opposite way(to Catholicism) with an anti Catholic bias lol
Interesting
When you said you converted to Catholicism "by reading the bible" did you mean without THE EXTRA CATHOLIC BOOKS ADDED TO "EXPLAIN" SCRIPTURE AND BEYOND? Catholics ADD SO MUCH dogma & doctrine TO scripture, God's Word. Mostly I'm referring to Canon Law and The Catechism; it's been said that 80-90% of Catholic teaching (and practices) are outside the bible and change. There's just so much EXTRA, made by men, who are sinful and fallible, which are absolutely required or else a person (all Christians outside Catholicism) is doomed to hell (because the the beliefs and practices are mortal sins). Biblical Christians rely on JESUS for life and complete forgiveness, & not on an institution. JESUS left the Holy Spirit on earth in believers--not Peter/popes (Peter said he was a fellow elder), and HIS HOLY WORD. That's what JESUS did. JESUS. I TRUST JESUS, the author & finisher of faith.
@@susanburrows810 no, as a Protestant, I didn’t read those. Also, I wrote a 50 page paper that is an apologetic for the Catholic teachings from the Bible. If you’d like to read it, I can send it. It’s mainly for Protestants, so it relies on the Bible, the 66 books yall use. Also, look into the councils of Carthage and Hippo, which affirmed the Catholic canon, before Protestants took them out
Eucharist miracles are impressive. Especially those that have been analyzed with our modern day technology. Looking forward to this!
The Catholic guy seemed to be addressing you right there a few moments ago.
@Dani M There has not been a single case of these "eucharistic miracles" where the claims of the church has been verified using modern scientific tools.
Michael, that is incorrect. Dr. Franco Serafini’s book,
A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles examines just that.
@@EpoRose1 Anyone can write a book making all sorts of claims. If he truly had solid data supporting rhe claims of the church, those would be published in a well respected scientific journal and subjected to peer-review. That is how it is done in the academic world. All scientific hypotheses and theories are presented to and scrutinized by peers.
If they have found and isolated DNA from various cases it should be a breeze to compare those and thus see if those are from the same person. No such data has been presented. Why?
The Eucharist isn't a scientific experiment. Rome's obsession with examining the Eucharist under a microscope is as absurd as the Feast of Corpus Christi. Christ said, Eat and Drink. Pretty simple.
Thanks Austin, Gavin, and Brett!
It really seems like these are the kinds of discussions that should take place *within* a single, unified Church, rather than across separated ecclesial bodies. I understand it will take work to get there, but we really do need to get there.
Austin, thank you for bringing together these great Christian thinkers of our day. Regarding the Holy Eucharist, I was bugged down during the pandemic when access to the church was not possible and I could not receive communion or attend Mass. As I reflected on the prayer of Spiritual Communion while watching live Mass on line, I reflected on how much the physical union with Jesus had meant to me. Our God is so loving that he wants to be one with us in all sense of the word.
My pleasure!
If Christ is present, the Person must be present. To say he is spiritually present is to rend the Personal Union of the Two Natures apart. Wherever Christ is, there He is with His Divine and Human Natures.
Said with all love for Dr. Ortlund, still my favorite Baptist.
Although I do appreciate your comment, I do have a question. Do you deny the human nature of Christ? Obviously you would say no, but if we hold to a view of transubstantiation Christ loses His human nature by being distributed thousands of times every moment across the Earth. This, even when scripture says he is seated at the right hand of the father and will return again some day. I’m not saying he cannot be present with us in some way in the Eucharist, but I just wanted to present some considerations.
Thanks:)
@@joshuahaley7086 Thanks for the question, Joshua. Yes, I do affirm that Christ has a True Human Nature, but, unlike ours, it is joined in a Personal Union with the Son of God. Divinity assumed Humanity. Because of this Personal Union and what is called in Dogmatics, the Communication of Attributes, our Lord's True Human Nature is capable of doing particular things ours is incapable of.
One example is that God purchased the Church with His blood (Acts 20). He atoned for the sins of the world. If you or I were crucified, it would purchase no one from anything. So, as respecting His presence in the Holy Communion, it can be present, not in a Localized or Circumscribed way, but as the Lutherans came to confess, in a Sacramental way.
As to the question of God's Right Hand, it is not a Location, as if the Human Nature of Christ is Circumscribed to a place. The Right Hand is an Exaltez Position of Authority, according to which Christ Jesus fills all things as the Person (Eph. 4).
@@marcuswilliams7448 thank you for clarifying and providing a well thought response I’ll definitely look into that.
@Christos Kyrios Where Christ is, there *He* is. I know of no other Presence of the Son of God than the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Consider the Lutheran categories respecting the Communication of Attributes. Because He has ascended to glory, Christ Jesus--according to His Human Nature--fills all things. So, yes, when He says, "Lo, *I* am with you," the very One who speaks the Word is present.
@Christos Kyrios I am saying that, yes. I don't say that His Humanity possesses this quality essentially, but because of the Personal Union of the Two Natures and the Communication of Attributes; especially the Communication of Majesty.
Does the shedding of blood ordinarily atone for the sins of the world? Because Christ's does, is it not a True Human Nature? Christ has a True Human Nature that has been assumed into Divinity.
you would be hard-pressed to find a more intellectually intense (as opposed to emotionally intense) discussion around the Eucharist than this. hats off to both men for their cordial, yet meaningful, approach to their positions ---- and the positions of the other.
Super grateful that these two were willing to sit down for this
This was good. I'm learning how rich the protestant tradition is while understanding better my Catholic tradition. Currently reading Salkeld's book.
Brant Pitre also has a great book on this called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
This is just such an awesome dialogue that I am moved to tears, with the hope this gives me for our broken world.
Wow, I'm so glad to hear that. That's so encouraging
I'm a Catholic but I LOVE Dr. Ortlund!!
@Thomad Reusser. Yes he has a nice demeanour. Nevertheless he still holds Protestant views that are incompatible with the deposit of truth Jesus left with the Catholic Church.
@@jeremiahong248 Yes unfortunately it's true. Let's pray for his conversion!
@@thorobreu Well said brother!!
@@jeremiahong248 true and it misleads people, that can be a danger to one's soul who are misled.
How?!
So refreshing to listen to a debate/discussion where both sides are respectful, charitable, and fair. Thank you to all involved.
Thanks so much for bringing these two awesome people together Austin! I now understand perspectives on the Eucharist far better than before 😊
So glad to hear that! That's the goal
Excellent dialogue. Great job Dr. Ortlund!
This was fantastic. I'm proud of the humility and respect from start to finish.
Hey Gavin. Catholic here... I don't see many (any) Protestants who are as thoughtful as you are...
How so
What a change - when I was a teenager in the 1960's we had ecumenical meetings during the week of Christian Unity, we all went to each others churches for a service and made friends with those of other faiths - we Catholics with Anglicans, Methodists, Unitarians (I think), Quakers but . . . no Baptists - they refused to join us in those services - so this is a leap forward from those days
There's only one sheep's pen with a shepherd St Peter, Anglicans etc should come here.
Christian Unity?
We will have Christian Unity only when all the Christians are Catholic again!
Our Lord Jesus instituted only ONE Church. Why would He need more than one, just causing this confusion for us?
@@alhilford2345 You contradicted yourself. Why label the Church of Christ as ‘Catholic?’ You say we need to come together in Catholic Unity, but why use the term, Catholic? Why not use the term as you first used, Christian Unity. The word Catholic is a huge trigger word for believers so, maybe simply love your brother, as a believer in Christ Not, love your Catholic brother. Peace 😊
I doubt you fellowshipped with unitarians. They aren't trinitarian and believe Jesus was just a man, no divinity. That's a step too far in ecumenism.
I love the fact that Dr. Ortlund mentioned our tribalism and way of "othering" each other. The Eucharist has become a weapon: a way of punishing and excluding those who are not seen "worthy". The worthiness game is one that is not is of Christ but the way of immature tribal religion.
There is only one religion, the Catholic church, for Christians.
@@koppite9600 there you go! You are here obviously not to be charitable, listen and learn but, to promote your tribalism.
@@Tanjaicholan you cannot learn from anyone who threatens the faith. You should be firm like Job when they asked him to leave God and David when he knew Saul was his king chosen by God even though Saul had lost it.
People don't want us to be one for some human reason which we should shun by all means. Imagine saying no to divisionists who want us to respect their divisions of the Faith... we would be stronger than ever, today Christians disagree on matters even like abortion and the qwerty culture because there are divisionists among us who divide us and we stupidly respect them, we would make it known to them that they are excommunicated if they veered off track IF we were one, let's be one.
@@Tanjaicholan :
But kop pite is correct!
Our Lord Jesus established ONE Church.
Why would He need more than one?
Does it make sense?
Why have thirty thousand different sets of doctrines when ONE will do the job?
But what about the fact that Catholics use the eucharist in a very exclusive way: NO ONE CAN PARTICIPATE UNLESS you are a Catholic IN GOOD STANDING. No casual, infrequent Catholics and NO ONE outside the Catholic church. In contrast, Biblical Christians (all denominations) welcome ALL BELIEVERS to participate in the Lotd's Supper!😊
A great conversation. That was a joy to watch.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I really appreciate you hosting this conversation, Austin, it is so important!
One of those dialogues where I’m grateful to be Orthodox “The Eucharist is a great mystery!”
We can say what has been revealed but beyond that…mystery and that’s fine.
The creation of the World, Incarnation, what heaven is like… we can’t possibly know now ‘we see through a glass darkly’.
I’ve always found it interesting that EVERY Church that has an organic connection with Christ through apostolic succession believes in the CORPOREAL presence of Christ in the Eucharist (body blood soul and divinity) while those that do not have that connection hold more to a “spiritual” but not corporal presence.
Ignatius of Antioch who knew John the Apostle having been ordained by him says of the Eucharist “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Hard to imagine he got it wrong and Calvin got it right .
Exactly.
Calvinists would not flinch at this kind of language from Ignatius. As if it were this simple.
Where does Jesus say " soul and divinity " : that is your made up doctrine outside of Jesus 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus founded a visible church with real teaching authority ergo a specific Church - How do we know it’s visible?
Well our Lord tells believers to bring those who will not hear the witness of other to “the church” (Matthew 18:16) - and if they refuse “ to listen even to the church let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector “( Mt16:17).
Now Christ would not have commanded us to go to the Church if the Church was not identifiable or visible. Similarly He would not command us to listen to the teaching of that visible church if the Church did not have binding teaching authority. Thus the Church that Christ is describing must have the charism of infallibility since He being God - would not command believers to be bound to the teaching of the Church - if the Church could teach error.
There are many verses in the Bible that point to a Church that has such authority - though not the topic of discussion in this blog. Indeed Saint Paul describes the church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15.
Now we know or should know that the Church in Saint Paul’s time was visible and had an organic connection with a Christ himself - through apostolic succession thus - none of the Protestant churches can possibly be “the Church” Christ is referring to when he tells believers to hear the Church.
Since all of the Churches that have an organic connection with Christ hold to the “real corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and that this presence is not only HIS BODY and blood - but also his Spiritual presence - it follows that His Body blood soul and divinity are present in the Eucharist.
Moreover this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches - and I think history shows that it is the Catholic Church - which is the visible church - established by Christ. Since Christ commands us to hear the church - I can believe what His church teaches
It’s not far fetched from a biblical standpoint either as - the Bible properly understood teaches the. Real presence (though I think the Catholic in this presentation laces his reasoning with ambiguity - this does not provide a good witness to the biblical understanding/ teaching on the real presence).
Certainly it’s a stretch to say Christ points us to the Baptist Church as the pillar and ground of the truth since the Baptist Church didn’t exist until over 1500 years after Christ - that seems apparent no matter how Protestant apologists try to worm their positions into the early church.
But suffice it to say the EVERY Church with an organic connection with Christ through apostolic succession holds to this doctrine - it doesn’t have to be explicit in the Bible in order to be true. Where for example does the Bible teach that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday? Certainly implied but not explicit. There are many other things like this.
I hardly think that the central doctrine of Christianity which was held up until the time of the reformation would have been misunderstood by the church until the reformation.
@@mikeoconnor4590 you obviously don't realize that Christ didn't start the RCC/ Orthodox church: but they developed out of the many earlier churches started by All the Apostles and are a man made organizations just like Protestants churches based on the teaching of the Bible and Church fathers.
But bad interpretations have split Christianity into the various traditions and denominations that we see today: and the RCC broke away from the Orthodox way before the Reformation happened so the RCC is really the first Protestant church and Protestants are really Catholic in that we are part of the Universal church that existed before the Orthodox and RCC developed by getting back to what they accepted from the Bible books that that were later confirmed into a Canon that the earlier churches were already using as authentic Scripture.
BTW there have always been Christians outside of the Orthodox/ RCC churches and these people were highly persecuted by the RCC and orthodox which led up to the Reformation to and trying to bring back the RCC in the west from its political domination of Europe and persecution of non RCC Christians and other non - Christian religions groups.
When the RCC names all these groups as heretics then it's lost it's right to God's authority and just becomes a tool for popes to persecute others .
Thanks but Christianity wasn't united up until the Reformation: very erroneous RCC propaganda that only Roman Catholics believe.
You really have to shut your mind off to Believe that.
Don't read any church history book.
The idea that Christ's Church is only a visible one and is only the RCC is so ludicrous that only Roman Catholics believe that: the true believers have their names in the Lambs book of life and WE are the Universal Spiritual church that transcends all traditions and denominations. The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest and then the counterfeit Christians in every church will be uprooted and burned and the true wheat will be gathered into the kingdom of God Matt 13:25-30. It ain't a church that you need to push and traditions like the Pharasees Matt 23:23-30.
But a true Repentance that leads to salvation through the Blood of the Atonement and baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the true baptism that Unites us to God : not some rituals that developed later that only your Priests can preform.
The Holy Spirit proved this by falling on Gentiles that were not even considered eligible to become Christians by your( First Pope) .
Your RCC propaganda is sad and easily refuted.
This was the most honest and vulnerable debates ever.
Love this type of dialogue! You guys are so awesome! Keep up the good work and God Bless!^_^❤
Talking about the communion debates between Lutherans and the reformed convinced me that salkeld is well read all around. Great convo
Really loved this discussion! I love hearing people cordially discuss topics like this, and always come out learning something. I have immense respect for Dr. Ortlund already, but am now a big fan of Dr. Salkeld as well and am gonna have to read his book. Thank you so much for setting this up, Austin! We need more cordial dialogues like this!
So glad you enjoyed it! We're hoping to do another this summer
@@GospelSimplicity Sweet! I'm looking forward to it!
Wherever you stand, you gotta appreciate the scholarly enthusiasm of these two doctors!!
I love these guys.
Fantastic discussion. Thanks Austin, Gavin & Brett.
I grew up Baptist and will never forget this event that speaks volumes about what Baptists really believe about the Bread and the Wine. I attended a youth revival trip and on Saturday afternoon, the ordained Baptist pastor leading us gathered us together on the floor of the church gymnasium. He passed around a big bag of Lay's potato chips and told us to each take one chip. Then he passed out Dixie cups and a bottle of Coca-Cola and asked us to pour ourselves a sip of Coke into the Dixie cups. Then he explained how the Lord's Supper is about SYMBOLS of Christ's Body and Blood (He meant tokens, not symbols, btw) and emphasised that it absolutely doesn't matter what we use to symbolise Christ's Body and Blood becuase they are just SYMBOLS. You'd think he'd be generous enough to respect the elements representing Our Lord to choose more respectful "symbols" but alas it was Coke and a potato chip. No prayer. No blessing. We were asked to close our eyes and thank Jesus for dying for us. Decades later, i attended a Baptist Cornerstone church that met in a warehouse. After 45 mins of way too-loud music and nearly an hour talk about the book of Titus, for cryin' out loud, folks around me started to move from the folding chair seats to the middle aisle. I thought the service was finished and i was eager to get out and go home but alas the service WAS over but on our way out each person present was pouring himself a cup of grape juice and pulling a chunk of bread off a round loaf. That's self-serve Holy Communion, which, of course, is an oxymoron. Take-home: No matter what a Baptist theologian says about spiritual presence, it might be good to judge by their praxis. One issue not touched on here that's germane is the use or not of the mass liturgy to bless the species before, during, and after the assembly receives.
Interesting, but not surprising.
After the sixteenth century break from the Church, anyone could start their own religious group and design their own rituals.
That is why we have thousands of non-Catholic " churches" now, and new ones being formed every day!
There are verses in the old testament that assures that the God will be with us... However, the Arc of the covenant had the real presence of God...It had the 10 commandments, the mannah, and the Aaron's rod....Mary, the arc of the new covenant bore the the word, the new mannah and the high priest...All three of these are necessary for the real presence..actually 4....The Scripture, the Eucharist and the Priest...and Mary is an inevitable part of this too...So there is no communion without one of these
Sadly, I’ve seen abuses like this as well. And it’s growing. My heart aches and why I am searching the Catholic faith .
If we keep our identity in Christ first place and our denomination in second place, we will be more in unity.
I agree! Though it is hard to do that when 80-90% of the teaching is outside the bible ( in the 2 more important books: canon law & the catechism); and with Jesus' death being only 10% of salvation ( 9 other requirements according to catholic dogma), MANY other peopl e/saints/Mary/Pope/ priests giving instructions & dispensing grace & granting forgiveness. Jesus is so lost in the mix, & this is planned this way. Very sad ( with atrocities throughout history). I believe JESUS is the author & finisher of my faith!!! Not men or a manmade religion. TRUST JESUS -- he is THE way, THE truth, and THE life!
I want the Ortlund family to consider adopting me
This is amaizing. We need this kind of discussions a lot.
Well, my experience as a Catholic leaves me with no doubt that the Catholic Church teaching on the Eucharist is profoundly correct. There have been miracles related to it all over the world and in my own family related to the Blessed Sacrament. PROFOUND miracles related to the mass and the Sacrament itself. So, debates aside, interpretations, opinions, ideas, dialogues, or whatever, my family does not need any of it because we know by experience what the church teaches is indeed true. That is why the Sacrament is reserved with great care in the Tabernacle of every Catholic Church, because it IS Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, He has never left us. It is why we genuflect before the Tabernacle, the King is in it. There is no doubt. None.
Based on all my family's personal experiences and signs and wonders of all kinds we have witnessed as Catholics. No way, none, would I ever challenge the teachings of the Catholic Chruch on the Eucharist, and the ordained priesthood needed to confect the sacrament.
I would belong to no other religion, none could offer me the riches I have in the Catholic faith, and if I die a pauper on the side of the road, I die rich, wealthy beyond all measure in the treasures of the Catholic Church. It is my prayer for ALL Christians to enter the Catholic faith and answer the prayer of Jesus in the garden that ALL would be ONE so the world would believe. Such unity that Christ prayed for is a profound unity and it never results in discordant teachings, nor any authority outside that designated by Christ through His apostles and their successors. The king is the king, the guy with the keys is the keeper of the king's keys.
Best wishes to all.
I was brought up Roman Catholic and going to the Scriptures and learning from them opened my eyes to the errors of Roman Catholicism. God is merciful, and He responds despite or our ignorance. God's purpose is to renew us by His Spirit not by any more sacrifices we can provide. God provided the one and only sacrifice necessary for our salvation namely what Jesus did on the cross of Calvary. I suggest you read the book of Hebrews, read it carefully. I am not taking you away from Christ, on the contrary I am guiding you to the real doctrine of salvation which exists in the Scriptures. To think Jesus's intentions was to leave His body, the church, in the hands of humans is a mistake. He is the head, and He leads His body, which we are, in obedience to Him. All this is accomplished by His Spirit not by any other means. I know you most likely will not accept what I am saying but go to the Scriptures and read for yourself as I did, you will recognize the errors of Roman Catholicism as you read.
@@fcastellanos57 If you do not consume the body and blood of the Lord you have NO life in you. NONE. Ponder that. Ponder your loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
Your problem is you are confused with false teachings by those not competent to teach.
I happen to know absolutely that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that the pope has the keys. I know it because unlike you, I follow the teachings of the Apostles, while you, being mislead, follow error.
On the feast of Saint Kateri our holy oil was multiplied, this occurred after I spoke to Jesus in the tabernacle of church and asked Him specifically for the intercession of the Indian maiden. That miracle was accompanied by the scent of lilies.
That is just ONE of the many many dozens of miracles that Jesus Christ has done for me, and others and ALWAYS in a Catholic context within the Catholic Church.
Additionally miracles relative to the Most Blessed Sacrament, are well known in the church. To confect the Blessed Sacrament an ordained priesthood by the laying on of hands from the time of the Apostles is needed. None of that is available in the freelance world of the protestant experiment. Nor, can any coherent and unified teaching be found in that land. Protestants ordain women, openly practicing sinners who live homosexual lives, protestants teach divorce is allowed, protestants teach abortion is allowed, and finally they make their own bibles such as the Mormons, and others toss out books they do not like.
Whenever a king leaves town he leaves someone in charge. That person is known historically as "the keeper of the keys"
@@johnjon1823 I do not follow whatever current exist in Protestantism, I read what the Scriptures say. Have you read John 7:37-39? where is it that we get rivers of living water from? read this carefully. John, who wrote this gospel says that Jesus meant this to be the Spirit those who believed in Him were to receive. Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit. We cannot test the truthfulness of anything by miraculous signs and wonders, there will be signs and wonders in the end time that will deceive many, we have to go by doctrine. The so call keys was not particularly given to Peter since Jesus also gave to the other disciples the power to loosen or tied. Jesus never left anyone in charge of His body, He is the head, and He is the one who directs it. Jesus did not relinquish His position as the good shepherd and gave it to a corrupt system. I am not leading you to something different than the gospel by saying what I am saying on the contrary, I am telling you this because I know the errors of Roman Catholicism.
@@fcastellanos57 You are a quintessential protestant since you impute to yourself all the power and authority needed to be your very own pope. Which you indeed are. Additionally you have your very own church on yourself. You are your own pope, that includes working out your version of what Jesus did by your own lights, and NOT those of the Apostolic church. You are your own infallible expert on what scripture says and means, including which books to include. Shameless pride and no faith in Jesus. Your faith is in your pretend Jesus.
You are in rebellion to the king because you reject the king's authority to appoint Peter as the one with the keys, and you disregard history, traditions, and the on-going never interrupted action of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church. AND you reject the witness and testimony of those who KNOW you have it wrong and indeed can back it up by personal experience of the Lord Jesus and His sacraments. Not the least of which is His MANY and ongoing miracles in the Eucharist, through His saints, and in the body of the Catholic Church.
You were never Catholic, since nobody who knows what the Catholic Church IS, would ever leave it.
Repent, believe the actual good news. Or have no life in you, Mr. rejector of the Blessed Sacrament. It was Judas who rejected the Blessed Sacrament, He betrayed the Lord at the last supper because of it. MANY walked with Him no more YOU INCLUDED. Repent.
@@fcastellanos57 :
You may have been brought up Catholic, but you have not been educated Catholic!
How sad that you have fallen for these heretical ideas.
I really hope that you take notice of John's advice here.
He is telling you the truth, and I pray that you will have the wisdom to see it.
I appreciate these dialogues tremendously but sometimes I think it would be best for Catholics to answer the questions by referring straight to answers from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which are pretty clear on most of these questions that arise. It would definitely bring it to a more simplified level for viewers/listeners.
I totally agree. The Eucharist can't be reduced to a happy negotiation.
True!
absolutely agree with you! There were times where it felt like they were discussing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” rather than the reality of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist. In some ways this discussion - at least from a Catholic perspective- felt weak, and at the same time over intellectualized as if discussing abstract ideas rather than a reality. The Catholic belief was not, in my opinion, clearly and unambiguously stated.
We never sacrifice Truth for anything even ecumenism.
@@mariac4602 Exactly. thank you. Every time Gavin is involved it becomes a congeniality contest and looses all substance.
In meditating on the Eucharist during Adoration something occurred to me --- To have faith in Christs presence in that very Eucharist mirrors that of the incarnation (and in fact we are seeing a type of incarnation - encapsulated.) In this modern day we are offered the same proposal that the apostles were met with in their day - that God could come down from heaven and be "contained" in a corporeal form, in a finite bit of matter. For them it was a human body that spoke directly to them and performed miracles; For us it's unleavened bread that speaks to us in spirit and also performs miracles! To face that same challenge is breathtaking! To look at something of this world and truly believe that the vastness of God is condensed in that something - for a short time, to be physically present with us, and then to leave us. The entirety of the Gospel is present in that challenge! I don't doubt the Apostles looked at the man Jesus with the same nagging doubt that some of us still get when beholding the Eucharist - "Is that really God?"
Hi John,
I think your point here is exactly what John 6 is about. Catholics too often skip the first part of that chapter, which is about the Incarnation of Jesus, and skip to the second, about the Eucharist. But John's point is clearly to link the two of them, as you do here.
Best,
Brett
@@brettsalkeld9735 Yes! John 6:40 "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” How could Christians existing after the resurrection look upon Him unless he remained with us physically / in some corporeal form. It's super fascinating to me that we aren't just left with the challenge of having faith in the historicity of the Gospels but also in the living daily incarnation of Christ in the Eucharist. It's sad to me that those with a different understanding of the Eucharist don't see that Christ is still with us BODILY. I think many Christians can agree on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but will they come to affirm that is truly Him bodily? I pray for it daily!
That may be the case for lots of Protestants. But personally, it's not a question of being comfortable accepting an incarnation. I just honestly don't think it's what the writers of the gospels and church epistles, including the fathers succeeding the apostles, taught. The fact that John 6 is unrelated to the last supper and John doesn't connect the two; the fact that none of thr synoptic gospels comment on a physical transformation; the fact that none of thr synoptic gospels connect the Eucharist to the old Testament to show the fulfillment of prophesy; the fact that none of the Jewish apostles objected to Jesus supposedly offering physical blood as a drink; the fact that Paul talks about the breaking of bread and wine without commenting on consecration or transformation into the Eucharist; the fact that not a single church father taught physical transformation; the fact that Catholics as early as the 9th century were debating the spiritual vs. physical presence without magisterial rebuke...
All of those facts together make it really hard for me to see transubstantiation as original church teaching
@@sivad1025 You're comment is leaving the realm of transubstantiation and entering the real of doctrine development and Church authority. I'm not a theologian so I'll submit a few simple points... Why is it that Paul suggested that you eat and drink condemnation upon yourself if you should receive communion unworthily? Why did Tarsicius risk his life to bring the Eucharist to 3rd century Christian prisoners; and then give his life rather than abandon the Eucharist? Why were early Christians accused of cannibalism ? Why did the teachings of the Eucharist cause Jesus to lose so many followers at once (the only time this happens in the Gospel). These are just a few early examples from the early Church that the Eucharist transcends mere symbolism. As far as the development of doctrine, a great metaphor I've heard is that of the acorn and the oak tree. If you weren't there to experience its growth, you might suggest the acorn and the oak tree were unrelated organisms. In the same way the passage of time transforms the simple acorn, so it also does the living Church. The dogmas of the modern Church do exist as seed form in the early Church; they are just far more developed now. The teachings of Christ (many foreshadowed in the OT) reach maturity in His Church. Search out Brant Pitres "Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" for more on your question. Lastly, I suppose you would need to recognize the value, necessity, and truth of Apostolic succession and the Magisterium to be able to wade through conciliar disputes and heresy resolution. Every dogma of the faith has been challenged at some time. Many far earlier than the 9th century. You don't even need to accept the Church's teaching on authority to realize that the Magisterium is necessary. Natural Law (the limits of human co-operation) should make this clear on its own.
@@JohnBoyX570 I'm actually very much open to the papacy and magisterial authority. I even accept the validity of doctrinal development and acknowledge its necessity to add clarity to doctrines generating heresy. No one has an issue with Nicea declaring Jesus to be the second person of God.
The issue with transubstantiation is that I'm not currently convinced that it adds clarification to existing doctrine. I think it reinvents doctrine that wasn't present in church tradition.
To be clear, I don't think the Eucharist is _merely_ a symbol. Catholics like to strawman protestants because memorialism is easy to refute. I would accept "real presence" in the way Calvin did. The bread and wine physically remain bread and wine but they become the Eucharist through consecration and spiritually carry the body and blood of Christ. They act both as physical symbols and as vessels for the spiritual presence.
This perfectly explains all your objections. If Christ's blood and body are spiritually present, it makes sense for Christians to treat the Eucharist with great reverence and Paul to condemn those taking it unworthily. It makes sense that the Christians were thought to be cannibals (they claimed to eat the body and blood of their savior) and it also makes sense that they _weren't_ cannibals. I think transubstantiation actually makes it hard to articulate that those criticisms were wrong. How is it not cannibalism if the substances have changed to human flesh and blood?
I don't think John 6 is talking about the Eucharist in all honesty. John draws no connection to the Eucharist and he skip's the Last Supper despite spending the most time on passover. If you read John alone, you would have no concept of the Eucharist. This is especially the case since John 6 begins with Jesus describing himself as "the living bread." Obviously this is metaphorical so it stands to reason that "you shall eat my flesh" should be interpreted in light of the preceeding metaphor.
Transubstantiation has absolutely no Biblical justification nor justification in the earliest church fathers. No where is a physical transformation described. Even Catholics admit that the earliest Christians treated the Eucharist with great mystery. I think the Catholic church erred by trying to unveil the mystery
I'm a Protestant Bible teacher and a student of theology. Gavin is the one who opened my eyes to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist rather than a mere commemorative exercise--first in his response to Francis Chan and then his review of Thomas Watson's book on the Lord's supper. Anyone interested can look up these videos, especially the second one which is more in-depth.
I was never taught what the bread and wine was FOR, but only what it was NOT. Oh, and by the way, if you take it unworthily you may end up sick or dead.
what a joy it has been to respond to the invitation of Jesus to come to the table. For it is there that I receive strengthening grace. I only wish I had known this 50 years ago.
As much as I hate to mess up the six hundred sixty-six comments on GOSPEL SIMPLICITY (let the reader understand), I must express my gratitude for the views you bring to your channel, Austin. I found Dr. Ortlund's reading of Catholicism in your solo interview with him to be needlessly ill-based or perhaps bad faith, but recontexualized into an interrogation of Catholic positions as articulated by a Catholic, I found him a much more engaging interlocutor. Many thanks to Dr. Salkeld for his approachable Catholicism; may I be so approachable.
Hahaha, the start to this comment was fantastic, especially the parenthetical statement. Well done
Praise be Yod He Vau He Yeshua Jesus Christ! Blessed chat! Like hearing an evangelical perspective!
Wow. An amazing, enlightening conversation. I am an ordained Anglican now operating as a pastor between various evangelical/Charismatic and Pentecostal churches here in Cape Town ... seeking greater unity based upon the essentials of our common faith, our love of Jesus and commitment to His call to be what we are, One, as He and the Father are one in the Spirit. So I loved the openness, mutual respect, eagerness to listen and work through thorougly, things that keep us apart. So unity is a very high priority for me. However never at the cost of Truth or the diminishing what is the Gospel. So for me the Real Presence is not the main issue. But what seems to me to undermine the Cross and Centerpiece of our Salvation and Relationship with the Trinity, is the Mass as sacrifice either by the priest or as sometimes exoressed, by Christ in the Mass. I have tried frequently in various contexts (personal meetings, researching online and listening to CZcams convos,etc) to really get what Catholics are saying about the Mass. What I would like to hear (as an Evangelical) is how do Catholics deal with Hebrews ch's 7-11 where the point so forcefully emphasised by the Author is not just that the sacrifice on the Cross was not just 'once-for-all' but that it can never be repeated. And that if it is that indicates that any act of repetition "CANNOT TAKE AWAY SIN" So then it is not so much about whether the Mass is bloodless or not but does it in anyway re-sacrifice or re-offer Christ. And here is where I struggle. I so appreciate Brett's attempt to soften this problem (Btw I think it was this very issue that led to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in the 16th Century to reverse his recantation and go to his death being burned alive rather than give any ground on the Finished Work of the Cross.) But the talk about our application, participation and the experiencing of the sacrifice at the Mass only fudges this issue for me. Trent it seems does not fudge this issue. Neither did Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope at the ARCIC conference. When it comes to the Cross we cannot give an uncertain sound in our proclamation ....especially at the Eucharist! So please can we get more clarity on this in order the Christ be better glorified!
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@@GospelSimplicity Thanks. Can you give a reply to my request that you do a post on the Mass in the light of Hebrews chapters 7-10?
As a Catholic while I find Dr. Salkeld to be incredibly knowledgeable and passionate on this subject - it's clear that he fell incredibly short on two key points that really disappointed me.
1. His point that the church doesn't treat Anglican Bishops as men playing dress up - therefore it can be speculated that the Church mysteriously recognizes some form of Protestant ordination in my opinion simply doesn't compute how the Catholic Church understands itself, not to mention how the Catholic understands the importance of Apostolic Succession. His speculation is almost akin to saying that if you squint hard enough it's possible that the Church can someday mysteriously recognize homosexual couples as being a real marriages.
2. Dr. Ortlund rightly cornered Dr. Salkeld on the topic of the anathemas of Trent. Dr. Salkeld's position that the anathema simply meant "Catholics aren't allowed to deny Transubstantiation as an 'option' for explaining the Eucharist" is most certainly a re-interpretation of the anathema at the service of ecumenical dialogue rather then an honest good faith understanding of what it means.
Ecumenical Dialogue is wonderful and important - so it was incredibly disappointing to see Dr. Salkeld justify his 'watering down' of Catholic teaching by appealing to obscure letters from a previous pope (while he was only a cardinal btw). Letters of a previous pope don't have the authority to override Magisterial statements and anathemas - if Dr. Salkeld agrees with this then I don't understand his appeal to those Ratzinger letters
Excellent point! That was my take as well. When they asked “what must a Catholic affirm about the Eucharist “ he really struggled to affirm anything other than a change takes place. When we receive the Eucharist the priest says “the body of Christ” we say amen. At least affirm that it is the body of Christ!
I saw it pretty much that way too. It was more a conversation about ecumenism than Eucharist. I wish he had gotten someone who could have explained the Jewish roots of the sacrament and it's connection to the covenant. Ecumenism is interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the depth and beauty of the Eucharist. I would like to have heard the Catholic view without compromise from someone like Brant Pitre or Lawrence Feingold.
An excellent informative dialogue - thank you!
Really good stuff. I love Gavin's attitude, his approach, and presentation.
Thanks for this Austin. I appreciate what you do.
What a great conversation. Great stuff.
I love how both guests have a thorough understanding of each other's traditions, how they respect each other, and how they find so much common ground!
I, a Reformed Christian, once visited a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in a town that I had moved to. They had a card in the pews for visitors to sign if they agreed and wanted to take communion. The card talked about real presence. I agreed, signed it, and partook of the sacrament. After the service the priest asked my about my church affiliation and told me I should not have taken communion because Reformed Christians do not believe in the real presence. I tried to tell him that Reformed Christians do use the term "real presence", but he wasn't having it. He was nice about it. He said I was welcome to attend services but without taking communion. I didn't go back.
I appreciated that about both of them. Sorry to hear about your experience with the LCMS
He wasn't a priest, he was a Lutheran pastor. Thus, he had no priestly authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Resurrected Christ. It remained what it was, bread and wine.
Christ is present “Body and Blood , Soul and Divinity “
Yes. Of course.
But only when the the bread and wine are consecrated by a Catholic priest.
Jesus isn't a soul , he is" Spirit": that's why is God , only God is Spirit.
@@ivanniyeha4229 :
Our Lord, Jesus, is true Man and true God.
Therefore, as a man, He is human, and every human being has a soul.
@@alhilford2345in my perspective Jesus is incarnate Spirit of God and not soul , it is written in Luke " the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you , therefore also that holy one who is born will be called the son of God " , the holy Spirit incarnate in the womb of mother Mary by the power of the most high .
@@ivanniyeha4229 Jesus has a soul according to His _fully_ human nature (body and soul), he of course is "Spirit" also according to His divine nature, insofar as God is Spirit.
The Church has rejected Apollinarianism as a heresy in 381.
Well done, God Bless you all. What examples of Men following Christ.
Did anyone else notice that Dr. Ortlund directed the host to change the subject when "how the leftover consecrated hosts are disposed of" was mentioned?
So what do you do with the actual leftovers : are they always the blood and body or do you pray them back to wine and bread ?
Gospel Simplicity thank you for having Dr.Ortlund. His clarity is unequal. Because of him I proudly called myself a protestant,
And am so at ease and confident in my decision to leave the roman catholic church.
That’s not good man, I’ll pray you don’t separate yourself from Christ in that way. Not a good call to rely on your own theological judgement. Dr Ortlund says one thing, but most Protestants don’t agree with him - who is to say who is right? You’re getting onto the boat of relativism there
You’re a Protestant, because of a man? I hope you dive into Scripture and start taking your eyes off men.
Receiving the Eucharist worthily, is receiving Heaven.
I went to a Lutheran service in Jerusalem a few years back, and they were handing the eucharistic leftovers out to passing Muslims at the West Front after it was over!
that would be heresy. thats maybe bleesed bread or something (I hope it is) but communion was never shared to nonChristians/non baptized, from apostolic times till now, even from Lutherans as i know.
I’m Lutheran, but I don’t know which Lutherans would do that. Maybe a liberal branch🤦🏻♀️
Hopefully it wasn't consecrated. That would be sacramental abuse.
A very fair and edifying debate.
I can NEVER cease to insist on this point, my catholic and protestant brothers: What divide us is not our different theologies, but mostly our arrogance.
There's arrogance and there is truth..one can say the truth without being arrogant
Interesting, Scott Hahn have a lot of insights on the Eucharists too.
Guys! Guys! You’re overthinking everything! (Joke) 😂 Fascinating conversation.
It's true that things are "amped up" as time goes by-- and I think that's why the Catholic church developed Transubstantiation in the first place. It's an accretion, I believe, and it came about more and more as the priesthood became more and more enhanced, and the common priesthood of all believers became less and less stressed.
I think Dr. David Anders is a better Catholic theologian than your Catholic guest.
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus whether one believes it or not!
This should be really good
We had a blast filming it!
"the very precise technical definition of substance in Thomas is: that which is present to the intellect"
I myself thought that for Thomas substance seems like a mental and logical category and if that is so, that would place his view of real presence firmly within the realm of subjectivity, which is something that Catholics like to express as objectionable within protestantism, which I find kind of ironic.
Pic goes hard, ngl
Good conversation
Great dialogue, I really enjoyed it to a point. I have a few comments and questions:
1) Why is the Catholic Church always the ones who have to defend their positions, but the same scrutiny is never applied to difficult protestant positions such as predestination?
2) I disagree with the notion Catholics have to move towards protestants in their stance on the eucharist and priestly orders. Why should we apologize for believing the eucharist is only valid by Catholic priests and apostolic succession? There is a difference between respecting a priest or bishop in another Christian denomination as a fellow believer in Christ and saying that they are the same. The stance I believe Dr. Salkeld is taking is the Church is moving to a position that there is no difference. This is a mistake, and I can state many reasons why this might be the case.
3) Ecumenical discussions should be about clarifying our differences rather than an opportunity to apologize for Catholics beliefs as I felt Dr. Salkeld did on certain points. To his credit, at no point did Dr. Ortlund apologized or excuse protestant positions but did a good job of clearly stating his position.
4) Dr. Ortlund brought up Catholic beliefs that certain protestant positions place them outside of what we consider Christian beliefs. Dr. Salkeld made lots of excuses to which Dr. Ortlund expressed his appreciation. At no point, however, was there ever any mention of strong protestant positions on Catholics such as Catholics commonly referred to as the "whore of Babylon", Catholics are not Christian, or are idolaters, etc., which I heard all my life by Baptists. Again, another example of what I see as an "ecumenical dialogue" as being a very one-sided discussion and poor Catholic apologetics.
Agreed.
After ascension of Jesus into heaven, the apostles went forth to preach the Gospel everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.
This hard Catholic doctrine and practices from apostolic succession which many protestants accuse as man made tradition is a real sacred mystery.
I used to ponder on following two lines on the hymn 'Tantum Ergo Sacramentum' used for be sung during Eucharistic Adoration:
"... Senses cannot grasp this marvel, faith must serve you compensate"
Eucharistic celebration of Catholic Church through the anointed hands of it's Bishops and priests, and invoking Holy Spirit for transubstantiation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood to serve as our spiritual food and drink is a sacred and profound moment in Christian faith to provide spiritual strength during our spritual journey. As manna in the desert fell from heaven, this bread came down from heaven, born in Bethlehem, the house of bread, multiplied bread and finally gave us His own body as real food, to be able to remain both in physical and spiritual union with Him.
God faithfully continues to confirm His words through His one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church till today and to the end of time as He assured.
Not to sound flippant, but as a Byzantine Catholic I am glad I can just fall back on Eastern sensibilities and say; yeah, it's mysterious 😉🙏 Great talk guys!
I am sure everyone would like it to be that easy. But in the west the church gets challenged by heretics who force us to define every little detail
@@MrPeach1 yeah. I was not trying to be dismissive of the need for reasoning through belief. Though I a was kidding around, I know a lot of this is very hard for the average lay Catholic to digest. I have been studying a lot of this for a while now, and much of it still makes my head swim. It is good to be able to retreat within my meditations and just accept that Christ came to from His heavenly thrown to feed me both spiritually and physically. It's truly awesome and inspirational to know His love is so boundless that he humbles Himself to the form of simple elements to feed His people. I would add to something that neither of the good doctors seemed to hit on but perhaps danced around the idea that I think many Catholics forget; the Eucharist is both a sacrifice, AND a meal. We should remember that Jesus and His Apostles we're celebrating the Passover Seder at the time of His Sacramental institution. This is something that is very important to us in the East. Even if you cannot receive Christ's Precious Body and Blood, whether it's out of non-preparedness or that you are not Catholic, the priest will still give you a portion of the blessed bread that has not been consecrated so that everyone can partake in the meal.
I wonder if protestants accepted transubstantiation as a valid option even if we disagree, would catholics return the favor? That is, would they lift their anathema against those who deny transubstantiation and say that spiritual presence is a valid option even if it falls short of the fullness of the truth in their opinion?
I appreciate Brett’s desire to find commonality but It seemed like he was afraid to say anything that implied disagreement. Wish he would have stated the Catholic side more clearly
I agree. There is still the opportunity to expose more clearly the Eucharist understanding of the RCC. I would suggest to invite Trent Horn, Scott Hahn or Brant Pitre to discuss about the Eucharist.
Excellent presentation! Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it!
If the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…. Someone please tell me WHY did the crowd that day in John ch 6 leave Christ that day and never return???? Pastor Ortlund, why??? Why would they be so offended??? It’s bc Jesus meant what He said and THEY knew it! It was a Hard saying! It is very clear!
I am surprise with that Dr. Salkeld said so many things i did not know about Catholicism and that Dr. Ortlund is not fully anti-catholic theologically.
There are several understandings of the mystery of how Christ is present in the bread and wine. Perhaps have an Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran theologian discuss their positions on the subject. There is no one view of the topic from post Reformation churches .
Whose interpretation should we take?
I'll take what the church of St Peter says as we were told to in Matthew
Gavin: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
I understand that we always need to be kind and unity is important, but Truth cannot be compromised. We should not be afraid of being honest, sincere, and truthful about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. We should not make excuses or try to pretend we “need to move forward” to something the Church does not teach, ie. Communion cannot happen if there is not an ordained priest. If Dr. Ortlund wants to be recognize by the Church then he is welcomed home and he can participate in the sacrament. Absolute Truth is real whether your feelings are hurt.
I will say I always do appreciate when Roman catholics are being consistent like you are being
Interesting. Really trying to understand, doesn’t the RCC acknowledge that many Protestants have received legitimate baptism, as long as the formula was correct? But wouldn’t your critique hold against that sacrament as well, since most Protestants were not baptized by ordained priests?
@@NomosCharisA priest is not necessary for baptism. That’s why as long as a Protestant is baptized in the trinity it’s valid. But for the Eucharist a Priest is necessary.
@@lukasg9031 okay. But why is legitimate priesthood not just as necessary for one sacrament as for another? Are the sacraments divided?
@@NomosCharis some sacraments don’t have to have a priest conducting it. Like I mentioned early, baptism can be conducted without a priest as long as the baptism was done in the Trinity. But the ordinary way of doing a baptism would be done by a priest. Other sacraments do require a priest like Eucharist, confession, etc… this wouldn’t make the sacraments divided.
Just to be clear, the Lutheran view isn't that Christ is "locally/physically present", nor that our 'feasting' on Him can occur apart from a faith-union. We would essentially agree with the Thomist position that Christ is (and must be for Gospel assurance) present objectively in in a sacramental/spiritual mode in the elements and not merely "in the heart by faith", but that apart from faith we cannot benefit from His sacramental presence but instead are cursed unto judgement.
It depends on what you mean by "partake of Christ", all receive him by the mouth objectively, but there is no "partaking" in the sense of participation and benefit without faith. I believe even Calvin leaned toward affirming the objective presence, if I recall correctly.
I've been hoping for this for a while now 🙂I'm very interested to hear Dr. Ortlund's position more precisely.
This is going to be a good one!
As cordial and thoughtful as Gavin is he has no answer for the differences between catholic and protestants let alone between those protestant denominations. It always comes down to authority and since there is no authority every one does what is right in their own eyes.
Thanks! As a Catholic it bothers me that sometimes it seems like modern Catholics are trying to walk back so much of what was said in the past. Gavin seems to recognize this. Modern Catholics seem to be looking for "escape hatches" for hard sayings. It would have been interesting to hear some points on worshiping the Eucharist.
Escape hatches for which hard sayings in particular?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Many are called but few are chosen comes to mind. Many could get the impression that being saved is common for Catholics and non-Catholics alike by how this topic is spoken about today. I don't know how many are and are not but the Bible doesn't make it seem common.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 1:13:50 Dr. Ortlund explains his concern of Canon 2 of the 13th session of the Council of Trent which states… ”If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.”
Dr. Ortlund expresses that he himself believes Transubstantiation to be a possibility on the table, but personally denies the change of the whole substance of the bread and wine and explains because of this, the Council of Trent is saying he is anathematized.
Dr. Salkeld responds by what seems to be “walking back” the statement of Trent, seemingly trying to tell Dr. Ortlund he isn’t necessarily anathamatized, and that might not be what the Council of Trent actually meant. This is an example of what the OP Jonathanbohl4509 meant when he said it bothers him when modern Catholics attempt to “walk back” plain and harsh statements made by the Roman Catholic Church in the past.
It troubles me as well since I do a lot of work in Mormon theology and history. Their institution is experiencing a similar dilemma as the RC Church. They have very explicit historical documents anathematizing anyone who isn’t Mormon and doesn’t 100% agree with their theology, but now have Mormon apologists attempting to “walk back” the statements to make their church seem less harsh and more accepting.
Hello! I invite you to consider inviting Tren Horn, Scott Hahn or Brant Pitre to discuss further topics related to the Eucharist.
I go to Church in Astana, where Bishop Athanasius Schneider, among others, celebrates the Holy Mass. He's extremely serious about the Eucharist and the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. He explains that people should only take the bread directly into the tongue form the priest so as to avoid tiny crumbles of Jesus' body being scattered on our hands, clothes and on the floor. His conviction and coherent attitude make a lot of difference.
So all of a sudden Jesus is defiled if his body comes into contact with the ground. The very same ground he walked for three decades without considering being defiled then. So why is he defiled now?
@@michaelanderson4849 I think you are missing the point. It's not that Jesus is defiled (how could God ever be defiled??), it's just sacrilegious from us not to be careful while participating to the central event of Holy Mass, the very moment when Jesus initiates the New Covenant.
@@vaderetro264 My point is that the claims made by some figures over the centuries about how to handle the bread is borderline ocd.
@@michaelanderson4849 Unfortunately I'm not aware of the writings you are referring to. But I'll look into that, thank you.
I was fortunate enough to attend a Pontifical Mass celebrated by Bishop Schneider. He’s such a humble man. I’m reading his book The Catholic Mass and he’s so thorough and insightful, yet so simple.
Muito bom diálogo. Foi um excelente complemento ao livro que acabei de ler agora: "The Lord's Supper", do Dr. Keith Mathison. Continuo a ter minha perspectiva Reformada, igual à do Gavin, mas quero continuar aprofundando meu conhecimento sobre a teologia eucarística católica
Love the Eucharist ❤
My adorable Jesus,
May our feet journey together.
May our hands gather in unity.
May our hearts beat in unison.
May our souls be in harmony.
May our thoughts be as one.
May our ears listen to the silence together.
May our glances profoundly penetrate each other.
May our lips pray together To gain mercy from the Eternal Father. Amen.
Instead of just talking it would have been informative and compelling if the photographs and results of eucharist miracles was shown 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Dr. Ortlund, as a follow up to your statement that you don't believe it dishonors Christ to dispose of Eucharistic Gifts after the Eucharistic celebration is finished, do you believe that the method of disposal matters for something that was used for a holy purpose? Would you say it is better to avoid throwing the Gifts in the garbage if possible, or does it not matter in your view?
This was an excellent discussion. I really liked Dr. Salkeld's approach to transubstantiation being a valid expression or explanation of the mystery. But I share Dr. Ortlund's concern that this approach is not actually what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Happy to be told otherwise, but I get the impression from the "one true church" argument that you have to accept all the (current) official teachings of the church. Is this what the catechism says? It just seems like you can't have it both ways.
As a Lutheran, it would have been interesting to hear a Lutheran (Jordan Cooper maybe?) involved in this conversation since we’re sort of the third leg on the tripod that is western Eucharistic real presence theology, though I can see how that would probably have made the conversation too unruly to get through in under six hours.
Haha, your closing comment hits the nail on the head. It's always a tricky balance between representing multiple views and not making videos too long and unruly. As it is, this is already the longest video I've ever uploaded
As far as the Mass being a sacrifice - A re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross through time in Sacramental form, several things should be said.
The old testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in the form of bread and wine and that those elements would be used. Melchisedech - the king of Salem and a priest offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Genesis 14-18). Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek“, that is offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. Christ being a priest in the order of Melchizedek means in the manner of Melchizedek. The priest sacrifices the items offered (in this case bread and wine) - that is the main task of all priests in all cultures at all times, so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizadeck sacrificed.
Now we know that non blood sacrifices are not acceptable according to the old covenant. So the sacrifice of bread and wine, must somehow be a real blood sacrifice. This is exactly what was predicted in the old testament.
The prophet Malachi predicted a new sacrifice that would be offered in every place “from the rising of the sun even to the going down my name is great among the gentiles; and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation” (Malachi 1:10-11) .
Notice that the prophet speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices but one that is offered everywhere. The sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from Calvary (but not separate from Calvary) one that is given under the form of bread and wine. Only the mass meets these requirements. (Reasoning taken from Karl Keatings book Catholicism and fundamentalism).
Former protestant pastor and theologian Scott Hahn gives an excellent biblical explanation of how the Mass (or the Lords supper) is a re presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary through time in his book “the supper of the Lamb”.
A more easy read is an article easily found on line by this author called “Hunt for the fourth cup”. The article gives a fine biblical explanation of how the Last supper and the sacrifice of Calvary are one sacrifice - in the order of Melchizedek .
Really more than can be gone into here - but well worth the read for those interested in how these things work biblically.
I have thought of it in this way - same as “the two become one flesh” - and are completely United in marriage - so we are United to the bridegroom (Christ) as we - the bride - become one flesh with our savior every time we receive him. And more than one flesh - we are United both in flesh and spirit!
And consider this - If the old covenant foreshadows the new (the new being a glorious fulfillment of the old) - in the old covenant the eating of the lamb was required to consummate the covenantal bond between God and His people.
Similarly - the manna “from heaven” was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. If the Eucharist is only a symbol - the manna would be more glorious than what it foreshadowed - and we know this cannot be the case since the fulfillment must by definition be more glorious than what foreshadowed it.
Why would it be any different in the new covenant? Indeed The old covenant finds it fulfillment in the new covenant and just like the old covenant, we eat the lamb.
This is why the language in John 6 is so graphic - when Christ commands his followers to eat his body the actual verbs are “ chew” and “knaws”. Is it any wonder that he was taken so literally? Or that folks at the time took Him literally?
Also consider this - This is the very doctrine that Judas rejected Christ on as the scripture points out that he knew that all of them didn’t believe the doctrine and who would betray him (John 6:64).
Finally - just my non theologian thought - it strikes me that those who are reformed seem to have great difficulty whenever matter mixes with pure spirit as if God doesn’t use matter (such as the Eucharist) as real vehicles of grace. But if the incarnation means anything - it certainly means that God who became one of us uses matter as a vehicle of Grace.
As Saint Peter says He became a partaker of our humanity so that we may become a partaker of his divinity (2:Peter 1:4- paraphrase).
Well said.
1:12:23 INCORRECT!! It is absolutely says the bread and whine are changed in whole substance to the blood and body.
Protestant communion isn't to be worshipped or adored. This doesn't mean Protestant communion is useless. I will just never worship it or cry if it fell onto the ground. Or care for every crumb. Or put it in a golden tabernacle. Or bow before it. Or die for it. However I am not Protestant. I worship Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Consecrated hosts are frequently stolen from churches to be desecrated by satanic groups. These Satanists obviously consider the Catholic Eucharist to be the Body of Christ.
@@jotunman627 so does that hurt Jesus?
Get Real !
@@davidjanbaz7728 They steal the consecrated host to be used in their black mass.
Protestant here, and a debating one at that, thank you so very much for facilitating such a rigorous and thoughtful discussion. I have been somewhat discouraged by the dearth of dialogue at this level between Catholics and Protestants on these immensely important areas of doctrine. It has unfortunately been my experience thus far, that the fault for that lies more on the Protestant side; there seems to be a more straw-manning on this side of the Tiber.
That said, do you know of any good Catholic engagements with the doctrine of total depravity?? I have not yet found one, and it seems to me to be a major supporting column in the Protestant framework, particularly in reference to the validity of Sola Fide. I think it may be a philosophically untenable position, given that it seems to undermine our confidence in the very concept of moral judgment.
Glad you enjoyed it! I do not know of any Catholic engagement with the topic, though that certainly doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's not really something I've looked for
Good point about PSA refuting any presence even a spiritual one