Fr. Barron comments on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[oldworldartist]

But isn't it true that only a Catholic Priest has the ability by his calling to truly cause the transubstantiation of the host into the actual Spiritual Flesh of Jesus, the Mass itself is the unbloodied sacrifice reinacted as the Priest acts in the place of Jesus. The miracle of the Eucharist in Lanciano in the 700s is evidence of this, he was a Catholic Priest, the elements of the host were changed into a slice of a heart and the wine into blood, it never decayed and matches the Shroud of Turin

[brassspitoon]

Real Presence as a belief is not limited to the RC. Lutherans and many Anglicans also believe that Christ is truly present in the sacrament. Where we differ is your need to try to explain the holy mystery by resort to a pagan Greek philosopher (Aristotle) and "transubstantiation" on Thomist principles. Molecular science has destroyed the view you once held that bloody flesh is really present but veiled from our squeamish eyes by God. But consecrated bread is still molecules of wheat etc.

[homologeo]

If it is true that the priest becomes the persona-Christi, why does he not have the authority to heal people? Why doesn't he use such authority if he indeed has it? As I understand it, the ontological nature of the priest himself must be transformed to affect such a change in the elements, so why cannot this transformation allow for healing, or raising from the dead, etc?

[wordonfirevideo]

@homologeo He does have the authority to heal: it's called the sacrament of the sick.

[homologeo]

@wordonfirevideo Thanks for a response. If this is the case, why don't more priests use this authority to heal the sick? Why do we stand in mass, praying for the sick, while the priest - who has authority - only uses this authority to administer the Eucharist? Healing should be a weekly phenomenon, and yet it remains obscure and sporadic (some contest it does not happen at all). Christ gathered thousands around him to witness the miracles he performed - It seems this is not the case with priests

[colette0306]

Best and clearest explanation I have ever heard of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Explaining it to a non-Catholic, or even to a Catholic who just doesn't have full faith in it, can be incredibly difficult. Father Barron's explanation is logical and sound with full evidential support. If you truly believe all Jesus said, it cannot be so difficult to believe that when he said "This IS my body," he meant it actually IS his body.

[oldworldartist]

Isn't the Feast of Corpus Christi about a Eucharistic Miracle? For anyone who wants evidence, go to The Miracle of the Eucharist from the 700s in Lanciano Italy on Youtube, It will change your life and encourage your Catholic Faith!

[oldworldartist]

Isn't the Miracle of the Eucharist at Lanciano, Amazing Evidence of the Reality of Transubstatiation in the Mass, Is it not truly the Eucharist that transformed into a segment of the heart,still incorrupt with living proteins even today in the wine that was transformed into blood in this miracle. and doesn't it match the Shroud of Turin? What are your thoughts on the miracles of the Eucharist around the world through the ages?

[mhoowen]

In your response to QM you state 'Transsubstantiation is the changing of a worldly object (bread) into a non-worldly reality (the substance of Christ's body). What do you mean by non worldly. Are we talking about his resurrected supernatural body rather than his mortal physical body?

[CoryTheRaven]

One of the misfortunes of modern Lutheranism is that we do terrible catechism, the result being that I grew up thinking that Communion was just a symbol. Once I was finally taught (in my late teens!) that we officially believe in the Real Presence as well, I had quite a bit of wrestling to do. But the transformative grace, power and beauty of the Sacraments won me over. Now I would say that God acting through Creation, using the stuff of Creation to transform Creation is dominant in my theology

[CoryTheRaven]

@CoryTheRaven It really does matter if we are on our own doing symbolic acts of our own volition to impress Him or whether we are being drawn into God by His own Word involved with Creation.

All of which is to say great video! Thank you for posting it!

[Charisma33]

God Bless you, Father! I am very glad I came across this (or rather, the Holy Spirit led me here!) I have a question...my protestant roommate asked me once about the words "Do this in memory of me"? She says that's proof that He is talking about sharing in the Eucharist as a memory of Him...a representation. Obviously I do not agree, I am very strong in my Faith. But as a future nun, it discourages me when I can't find the proper words to defend Catholicism when confronted. What is the answer?

[wordonfirevideo]

@Charisma33 Memory, for ancient Jews, was so much more than intellectual recall.  It was a vivid participation even now in an event from the past. This was how Jews "remembered" the Passover. So Jesus' call to remember what he did is an invitation to participate in the event of his self-offering on the cross.

[KatholikosChristian]

@Charisma33 It is more than a simple remembering. St. Paul calls the Eucharist a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ in 1 Cor 10:16-18. A participation that involves makes us one body in Christ (v.17). And, in v.18 Paul alludes to how we participate in the sacrifice of Christ through the Eucharist in a similar way to the Jews who participated in the sacrifice on the altar through eating the sacrifice.

[francisxcc]

@Charisma33

Father is so right! When the good thief asked Jesus to "remember" him when He came into His kingdom, how did Jesus reply? "This day, you will be with me in Paradise!" This day you will be present in my kingdom!

When we pray at Mass for God to remember the dead, what are we asking for? For God to think about them? No, for God to make them present before Him!

Same thing in the Eucharist: Jesus is exhorting us to invoke His Real Presence, according to "I am with you all days..."

[Jy3pr6]

@bheadh It's happening to you too huh? Convert from militant atheism over here :) Burning in love for the one true Faith!! Two other atheists have converted with me I'll add. Just beautiful! I love you for standing up for the truth whoever you are.

[bheadh]

While you sit and quote scripture out of context, and hurl insults (not very Christ-like) about things you are ignorant of, what you need to remember is you won't be able to blame anyone (The C. Church, The Vatican.. any other Christian..etc) when YOU are before the Throne of Jesus. Christ's wish @ the Last Supper that "they may be 1 as You & I are 1. Today there are over 30,000 "churches". Which 1 of the man made PROTEST-ant "churches" are you from? Who "started" your "church"?

[only1wayJC]

Exodus 20: 3-5 Thou shalt have no other gods before. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath; or that is in the water that is under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them;---- All these thing are done in Roman Catholism. See eurcharistic practices and worship.

[bheadh]

@only1wayJC Statues and icons in Catholic Churches are ARTWORK. No body worships statues in The Church. You better not have a wooden cross in front of your church because it's "a graven image" this statement is just as rediculous as the "call no man father" routine. Maybe you should brush-up on history before you make such bigoted comments that you know NOTHING about. You just like to repeat what you've heard without doing ANY research for yourself. What were the ark, lampstand and manna?"images

[only1wayJC]

@bheadh When you study the real thing(the Word of God) you don't need to study evil to understand what good is, Your actions explain that you are a pagan sun worshipper, in the things you do and say. The Word of God is very clear on these issues.The moment the Roman Catholic Church changed the doctrine of Christ and christianized pagan worship was the day they fell away into perdition.In other words they have NEVER been about Jesus Christ and his doctrine. Its a different jesus that cannot save.

[bheadh]

Consider the original "Passover". The Israelites were commanded by God to "take a spotless Lamb and sacrifice it" (Jesus "perfect" sacrifice) "sprinkle the blood on the doorposts" ("there is no salvation without the spilling of blood") (the doorposts of our hearts) to save them from "the angel of death" (satan) Guess what they were commanded to do next!? "That same night they shall eat of it's roasted flesh". Just a "coincidence"? God doesn't make "coincidences" God knows what He's doing.

[only1wayJC]

Idolaters! Your false man created jesus cannot save you. Hebrews 4:12 Will show you what the truth is. For a description of the RC see I Timothy 4:1-3. If its not them why do RC's do these things? The wafer is your god. He just told you it was! Come out of her, or you will be destroyed.Repent and believe the Gospel. Jesus Christ is the WAY the TRUTH, and the LIFE, no one goes unto the Father but by Him. Run from the evil Roman Catholic pagan sun worshipers. Its a different jesus!

[bheadh]

@only1wayJC Sir, Hebrews 4:12 is talking about the "sabbath" it has 0 to do what is being discussed here. Your taking scripture out of context to use it for your own propaganda /agenda. Jesus "greatest commandment" was "to love God with all your mind, heart and being, the second is just as immportant as the first, you should love others as you love yourself." I don't hear anything in your statement that reflect this, at all. It says alot about you. The VAST MAJORITY of Christians believe JESUS.

[only1wayJC]

@bheadh I hate the things that God hates, the abominations that the Roman Catholic Church practices are very evil, and leads people to hell. I love people enough to tell them the truth, your hate of them is very clear in the fact that you wish to see them stay in bondage. You sir are doing the devils work. Your ignorance of scripture shows who and what you are. You have no discernment because you don't know what Hebrews 4:12 says.

[bheadh]

@only1wayJC Who do you think YOU are? What "truth" are you "telling" here? I don't see anything but false condemnation and insults. Tell me, where does it say in the bible that "sola scriptura" means ANYTHING. & don't use Heb. 4 vs 2 (out of context..again) because it's talking about THE HEBREWS. Why don't you consider the very next chapter? Heb. 5 vs 1-5? Why do you completely dismiss John chapter 6...all of it? Like um..John 6 vs 53-58? No, you REJECT it. like 1s who doubt Christs power.

[only1wayJC]

@bheadh Evil doesn't like being brought into the light.

[bheadh]

@only1wayJC Thats the immature comment I expected from you, that says nothing. You've been watching too much youtube or "Zeitgeist". You want to sit there and condemn people and talk about something you know nothing about. Then when confronted, you continue with the usual out of context non-sense. You pick and choose out of context examples to spew hatred...& I'm the "evil" one? Sure. Bet you didn't like ol' king Jimmys "evil brought into the light".

[only1wayJC]

@bheadh Your blindness prevents you from seeing the truth, if you choose not to understand the simplest truth, there's nothing more to say. You have until your last breath to repent of the evil that you practice. These things are not hidden from you, you choose to defend the evil thing. No matter what you say, there is nothing Christian about Roman Catholicism. It is a bunch of pagan practices that have been christianized. Your tradition nullifies the Word of God.

[csoul7811]

@only1wayJC and you don't have any traditions that also nullify Scripture?  I'm Ptrotestant, but I realized a while ago not all of Protestantism is purely Biblical

[only1wayJC]

@csoul7811 The Word of God is the authority. What you see here has never been from God. Roman Catholicism has never been Christian. By practice it is something completely different, complete with a different jesus. Its as far from Christianity as it can get. It is an oxymoron. If you love Jesus, why would you do things He hates? Compare what you do to the Word of God.

[csoul7811]

@only1wayJC "what you see here has never been from God" - yet I see Catholics partaking in bread and wine in a comemmorative supper poclaiming the Lord's death. They believe different than me about John 6, but I still see them participating in a ritual that was set up by Jesus, even fi they interpret it different in certain way.. Hence, I SEE them participate in something originating in God. btw, Roman Catholicism is not as far from Christianity as it gets, i've seen farther

[only1wayJC]

@csoul7811 If the eurchrist was only a comemmorative, that would make it a memorial, which it is not.Through transsubstiantiation a priest call god out of heaven to become a piece of bread, to be worshipped as god.This is their man created god. Which is the summit of their faith.They worship the creature rather than the Creator.A glass of milk with a drop of poison in it looks good,but it is deadly just the same.The diabollical nature of the RC far exceeds the nature of any other false religion.

[csoul7811]

@only1wayJC I've looked into the doctrine, and even though I donm't hold to transubstantiation, nor am I willing to misrepresent it, as you are here doing. Priests do not call God out of heaven to become a piece of bread, they instead, by the power of their words, cause the substance, not accidents of the bread to be replaced with the substance, not accidents of Christ's flesh. There is no statement of or desire to make Jesus into a piece of bread. Quit misrepresenting

[only1wayJC]

@csoul7811 Does the RC think that the Eurchrist is God or not? The answer is; Yes.It is God. Body, blood, soul and divinity. Real. This is the summit of the RC's faith. By their words. This is not hidden information, but easily accessible in the catechism of the catholic church.

[bheadh]

@only1wayJC Tell me, why are books "missing" from your "bible"? Did you know King James I (James the VI of Scotland) was an active homosexual? A sorcerer? He practiced black magic & burnt "withches". He had another sorcerer, John Dee, to consult Kaballistic JEWS in Venice to conjure up, you guessed it, The "king james version" where verses of the bible were CHANGED. I'd do a little homework before your hateful blatherings send YOU to hell. (God forbid) Besides that, they make you look stupid.

[only1wayJC]

@bheadh Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - When you use the Word of God and compare it to the Roman Catholic Church it reveals the pagan sun worshippers that they are, by everything that surrounds them, but most of all by the words that they speak, which is their fruit.

[mahoganyrush300]

This is the best understanding of the real presence of christ in in bread and wine that I have ever heard.

[Grace4grace116]

I believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but I don't think God is limited to presenting that in one reality, i.e. the substantial transformation of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. Rather, there is an alignment of the spiritual and the natural that allows it to be both simultaneously, perhaps in the same way that Christ is God in the flesh and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God on the earth today.

[superjoe1949]

Question: You said, "Transsubstantiation is the changing of a worldly object (bread) into a non-worldly reality (the substance of Christ's body). Are you saying the substantial change is limited to "non-worldly reality" only, or is the bread from wheat truly the physical body of Jesus? Jesus of Nazareth was a real person "made flesh" and actually had a physical body. Is Catholic doctrine clearly stating Jesus physical body is literally made present in transubstantiation?

[bheadh]

@superjoe1949 Yes it is. The message of the eucharist is central to Christs teaching, as seen in John chapter 6 and at any last supper discourse. Repeated over and over. The vast majority of Christians (Orthodox & Catholic, the oldest Churches, instituted by Christ, Himself, not some guy( usually a heretic Catholic priest like, Luther) believe this. @ the original Passover, God commanded Moses "take a spotless lamb(Christ) sprinkle the blood on doorposts(our hearts) 2 save from "death" eat lamb.

[superjoe1949]

Please explain how the transubstantiation is understood to be a real presence that began as bread from wheat and wine from grapes but changed in substance (not simply essence) into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Post consecrated "hosts" can be tested and determined to still consist in it's original elements of bread from wheat and wine from grapes...please explain

[quantumystery]

If Jesus turned water into wine presumably it looked, smelled, tasted like wine. Drinking too much puts you under the table. It was the real deal - wedding guests didn’t have to pretend. That’s what’s different about Eucharist doctrine. RCC claims bread transforms into flesh, wine into blood yet it still looks, smells, tastes the same. Before & after properties all identical. That’s why some folks don’t buy transubstantiation. If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck maybe it’s a duck.

[wordonfirevideo]

@quantumystery I'm afraid you're mixing things up. The miracle at Cana involved the transfiguration or elevation of one worldly nature (water) into another worldly nature (wine), a process that happens, rather more slowly, all the time, as rainwater is transformed, through a long process, into wine. Transsubstantiation is the changing of a worldly object (bread) into a non-worldly reality (the substance of Christ's body). There is, accordingly, no change at the empirical level.

[quantumystery]

@wordonfirevideo Fair enough, Robert. There's no point arguing with the untestable beliefs of religion - incidentally, that's a considerable advantage which science does not enjoy.

Thanks for sharing your views. I don't find them convincing but I do find them interesting.

Cheers

[wordonfirevideo]

@quantumystery Okay... But, man, you're the one who started the argument!

[quantumystery]

@wordonfirevideo If you're up for some constructive criticism it seems RCC sets itself up for negative reaction to Eucharist doctrine. Your video on the Real Presence gives no clue of its "non-world" nature. Without that distinction it comes across as doubletalk to theologically illiterate chumps like me. Words like “real”, ”substance”, ”elements” imply worldliness. Same comment applies to the Catechism & to my 3-1/2 years of Catholic schooling – okay, I may have been smoking in the boy’s room.

[lawwellsy]

With regards to the Real Presence, we're getting into the Aristotelean idea of incidental and substantial natures. Incidentally, or physically, the bread and the wine are still bread and wine. Taste, touch, etc indicates as much. However, at the substantial, spiritual level, they are no longer bread and wine but Jesus Himself. Consider a perfect clone. The clone is incidentally identical to the cloned at the physical level, but at the substantial level, it is not the cloned.

[quantumystery]

@lawwellsy Aaron might have said much the same to Moses about his golden calf. Moses had another agenda if the stories be true and so goes the perennial struggle between competing superstitions. I guess it'll end when one of the endless parade of doomsday prophets gets lucky.

[lawwellsy]

@quantumystery Slight difference - Aaron and the Israelites were attempting to quite literally limit God to a finite form without God's permission. God Himself instituted the Eucharist. It's all a matter of permission and understanding (eg a statue is not the saint, but reminds us of the saint, and what they strove for, namely God. An icon follows the same logic).

[quantumystery]

@lawwellsy Yes, they say that to define a thing is to limit it. And wouldn't Moses be horrified by the degree to which Christians & other religions have defined & limited God? Chopping God into three persons, giving them names and elaborate personalities, for example.

The golden calf & the Eucharists are both symbols or metaphors for God. These things are analogous, cut from the same cloth. No surprise that - doesn't modern Catholicism have its roots in ancient Judaism?

[lawwellsy]

@quantumystery First point is a different argument entirely. The point regards God's permission, not His assuming a form within Creation. Besides, logic and revelation demands Trinitarianism, else what did an all-loving God love before Creation?

And the Eucharist is not a metaphor - it IS God, truly and really present under the appearance of bread and wine, no different to His appearance as a burning bush, a soft breeze (Elijah) or a human being named Yeshua.

[quantumystery]

@lawwellsy Again, that's what the Israelites might have said. I don't suppose they'd have worshiped the golden calf as such - they weren't stupid, just superstitious. They'd have worshiped the god that inhabited the sculpture, having been summoned by their priest. It's a pretty close parallel to Eucharist worship I think.

Of course being polytheists they had multiple gods to pray to just as Catholics have the saint de jour to plead for intercession. It adds up to much the same thing.

[lawwellsy]

@quantumystery Are you being intentionally thick? Jesus gave us the command "Do this in memory of me." God never gave the command "Make me a golden calf." One has permission from God, the other does not. If you can't see it, your intellectualism is nothing more than vacuous show.

You equate things that are not equal. A saint is not a God. A saint is a member of God's Court, on Earth AND in Heaven. Those in Heaven are closer to God, ergo their intercession is more potent.

[quantumystery]

@lawwellsy If I'm a bit thick I assure you it's unintentional. But I guess it's more about perspective. Looking from a broader viewpoint than Catholic spin it doesn't take much intellect to see a parallel between a god constructed of metal & an oven fresh god of bread. Or between saints & gods. Some people pray to gods for favors, some to saints – different names for a similar fantasy.

[lawwellsy]

@quantumystery Even from that broader standpoint, it obvious that the Calf was built without authority or permission, while the Eucharist is consecrated under Divine command. That is the key difference that I have emphasised. And prayer to the saints does not stay with the saints - those prayers still end up going to God. They just take another stop on the road.

To note similarities without also noting differences leads to false equivalency, which is what you are doing.

[quantumystery]

@lawwellsy Presuming the extraordinary claims of the RCC are correct. I must have cut catechism the day they covered extraordinary evidence. Not to mention the church’s track record of being wrong about stuff.

Don't mind me. My Dad always said you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm signing off before somebody accuses me of being a troll. I’m not sure where they draw the line but if they start burning heretics again I’m in considerable danger. Thanks for sharing your thoughts & Merry Christmas.

[lawwellsy]

@quantumystery Well I don't think being stupid is something you've gotta do. That's the big difference, and if you can't see it, I'll pray for you that your eyes might be opened.

Merry Christmas, and God Bless.

[sruyle]

@quantumystery If it's not His body & blood then Christ would have called back those disciples at the end of John Chapter 6. Instead Christ let them go. If you want to apply science to the Eucharist I would suggest you research the scientific findings of numerous Eucharistic Miracles. They all add up. Christ is calling you Quantum, Christ is calling.

[quantumystery]

@sruyle Fr. John Corapi used to tell a story about folks who, with permission of their priest, baked communion wafers for their church. After several years somebody objected that the wafers were not made by the official church approved recipe. The Vatican got involved. When the dust settled the bishop had to tell the congregation that sacraments using those wafers was invalid, that they'd been worshipping toast for years. Interesting that nobody noticed any difference. What does that suggest?

[sruyle]

@quantumystery It suggests that the priest &or priests that allowed that practice to occur gave bad direction and I would say were negligent. With that being the case the fact that those hosts were invalid does not limit the graces that God can provide to those communicants. Your story is a sad and unfortunate story but it does not change the fact that the Eucharist is the body & blood of Christ.

[JoeyyLundin]

@sruyle Near the Vatican they have an exhibit ... back in the 12th century a priest had trouble im believing the eucharist .. during the mass it had actually changed to human flesh and human blood... scientists had year after year do experiments on it and the blood type of the blood is AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin). ... christ shows himself when nec.

[JoeyyLundin]

@JoeyyLundin its at real presence dot com

[mhoowen]

@wordonfirevideo Jesus said to fill the pots with water! Wine consists of water, carbon misc. elements and energy. So it was more than just a rapid transfiguration. Some of it was transformed in substance and was therefore a transubstantiation, albeit minuscule by comparison to the body of Christ. Jesus miracles were more than just worldly changes they were alterations to the laws of physics.

[wordonfirevideo]

@mhoowen That's not what "substance" means in the metaphysical sense. The Church holds that no empirically measurable change takes place in the eucharistic transformation.

[mhoowen]

@wordonfirevideo That's what I'm getting at. An abstract change in substance not a physical one. Empirically it may still prove to be water. Could you please answer my other question it's more important!

[MarysLittleFlower]

@quantumystery there have been cases when the Eucharist turned into visible Jesus' Flesh and Blood... these are miracles and are very well documented. Check out the miracle of Lanciano as one example :) but if this happened at every Mass... how would we be able to receive Communion? God knows our weakness so He lets the Eucharist keep its visible characteristics maybe so that we could eat and drink it? the change is not on the visible level but on another level where the substance is changed..

[Truth8Soul]

To anyone willing to respond:

From a speculative biological perspective...do you think it is important for us to "ingest" the flesh or living DNA of Jesus through transubstantiation through the Eucharistic practice? Would this possibly be a means of undoing the physical gestation of original sin trying to raise us to the level of the Immaculate Conception back to the true image of God? I can think of no other practical reason to literally eat the flesh and blood of Jesus...

[superjoe1949]

@Truth8Soul St. Paul once said, "It is no long I who live, but Christ who lives in me." I take that to mean Paul was over the course of his lifetime gradually "transubstantiated" into the body of Christ. "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Your pointing to the Imm. Conception as a destination for our human condition works if it portrays a spiritual (not a physical DNA) change. Our bodies are not the origin of our woes, but our fallen nature which is worked out spiritually.

[stillscarlett]

@superjoe1949 St. Paul is only human. Christ is God. I am uncomfortable sometimes that we seem not to see the distinction. That Christ's words have the power that St. Paul does not, though his words/faith was revealed to him by Christ Himself. I think Fr. Barron said it correctly, we as humans can only describe. Christ, by His authority, has the power to change reality. True, He had given authority to the disciples to heal the sick and do marvelous things. First though, they believed His words.

[superjoe1949]

@stillscarlett Thanks for your reply, but the persona christi is stated by the Church to be fully human, as well as Divine...part of the hypostatic union theology. The Church has always taught Jesus was beyond question experiencing our humanity in it's entirety. But that really isn't my question. My original question was: Is Catholic doctrine clearly stating Jesus physical body is literally made present in transubstantiation? For some reason @workonfire did not reply

[quantumystery]

@Truth8Soul It's literal and it's not. Catholic double speak. Look at Fr Barron's replies to my screen name a few days ago - he calls it "non-world reality". In religion you can have it both ways.

[wordonfirevideo]

@quantumystery So reality is limited to what we can directly see and hear? Where, precisely, did you empirically verify the truth of that principle?!

[MQ1611]

It is dishonest to take an incomplete statement from John 6:53 and refuse to interpret it in the light of the complete statements on salvation found throughout the same chapter and the entire gospel of John, which explained numerous times that eternal salvation is obtained simply by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rome's motive for adhering to this pagan "real presence" gimmick is its accompanying claim of a priestly monopoly in manufacturing the magical wafer$ = wealth and power.

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 Well it appears that you studied your theology from the Golden Book of Anti-Catholicism! And boy, I sure wish you'd show me all this money I've been making from confecting the Eucharist.  It must be hidden away in a Vatican bank somewhere.

[MQ1611]

@wordonfirevideo

Grenade explodes and a mortally wounded soldier, seconds from death, turns to his Catholic buddy and pleads for how to get to heaven. The devout Catholic says, "Just wait here, friend, I'll go get Father Barron and he'll come back in a couple hours and give you the Eucharist!"

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 That's completely ridiculous. He should tell him to make a perfect act of contrition.

[MQ1611]

@wordonfirevideo

That is the single most important question any living man could ever ask, and you don't know the answer.

The answer is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31) and "Lord, save me!" (Matt. 14:30) and "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:13) and "Look unto me, and be ye saved" (Isaiah 45:22).

Judas Iscariot will tell you, contrition is worthless. But receiving Jesus Christ by believing the gospel is salvation.

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 What do you think a perfect act of contrition involves? It is a humble acknowledgement of sin and a turning toward Jesus Christ for forgiveness. Whatever Judas did, it was not a perfect act of contrition. What St. Peter did in the wake of his denial was closer.

[MQ1611]

@wordonfirevideo

Yes, Jesus Christ himself saves any sinner who comes directly to him for salvation. That's exactly how it works.

[thegorn68]

@MQ1611 Nice reference! Is that from the Comic Book of Jack Chick, Book 1, page 5?

[MQ1611]

Priest claims John 6 is literal but John 3 "spiritual" then forgets to mention the Catholic superstition that physical water produces a new birth!

Nevertheless, he's wrong, Jesus said in John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Physical manna is worthless (v. 58). Eating their cracker only gave them "eternal life" (v. 54) for 15 minutes!

Read all of John 6, repent of paganism, and get saved.

[mehjs2]

Beautifully expressed and moving. Thank you fr!

[GawdOfThunder]

A conference on crackers? What century are we in? Just saying...

[benabaxter]

@3rosesred Truth! There is no recursion in the Bible which promotes sola scriptura. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible, &c, &c, &c.

[Estaban333]

Most western Catholics polled say that they do not actually believe in the Real Presence and you can see at most Masses that this is true, people entering church and chatting, laughing, reading, rushing out at the end, or even before. I cannot imagine how hurt Jesus feels but I think we are going to pay a great price for modern indifference to the wonderful gift of the Real Presence.

[zztstenglish]

@Estaban333 - "chatting, laughin, reading, "

I think the one that BOTHERS me the most is when cell phones go off during mass. I remember this one time a guy actually answered and we can hear him talking during mass?!?!

[gfreakj]

My mother loves you. She says you make things much easier for her to understand. I agree. You really helped me understand this. I was raised Catholic and got FAR away from the church. I have many questions that I need an answer to. You are answering many of them. I appreciate it.

[jackomalley2000]

Beautiful explanation of the Real Presence, Father.

A couple of small points:

(1) You emphasize the use of trogein in the John passage. But in Matthew, Mark, and 1 Corinthians, the word used by Jesus is translated as phagein. Do you find any significance in this?

(2) You said "The priest at Mass effects the Eucharistic change."

Does the priest do this or does the Holy Spirit? Is the lack of an epiclesis in the Roman Rite a stumbling block to the lex credendi?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jackomalley2000 There is no comparable passage in the Synoptics. We have there the standard accounts of the Last Supper institution, but there is nothing like the Johannine discourse where the contrastive use of trogein is particularly illuminating. And of course the Holy Spirit effects the change, but he uses the priest as a very real instrument of his purpose. And what do you mean about the "lack" of epiclesis. There is an epiclesis in all of the Eucharistic prayers.

[jackomalley2000]

I take it that there is then no significance to the phagein / trogein distinction. Rather like "manducat Dominum" in the "Pangue lingua". Bad classical Latin and bad classical Greek. I think that phagein might have elicited as much consternation among the orthodox Jews as trogein.

I meant, is there an epiclesis in the canon of the traditional Roman Rite? Let us leave aside the novus ordo. The lex credendi was not invented in 1970.

BTW, do you celebrate the Usus Antiquior?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jackomalley2000 But the point is that Jesus intensified his language when he was given the opportunity to soften it. That's why the phagein/trogein distinction matters in the context of John 6. I'm not sure what you're driving at with the epiclesis thing: I mean the prayers of the Novus Ordo are the prayers of the Roman Rite and they all contain a calling down of the Spirit.

[gambleor]

@wordonfirevideo The meanings of the terms phagein vs. trogein haven't changed in the modern greek from what they meant in the days that the gospels were written. To say phago is to say "to eat" short term - one meal. trogo implies "to be eating" continuously - in the process of eating. I think that's the distinction really being made.

[gambleor]

@gambleor The confusion here comes from the mystical supper in the synoptics where Christ says "lavete, phagete, touto mou esti to soma, to uper umon klomenon eis aphesein amartion." He's only giving them a bite that they will devour in an instant. That is why He uses phago in that instance.

[Mechanized0]

@wordonfirevideo While I'm not Catholic it is curious that, assuming Catholic doctrine is incorrect regarding the Eucharist, Christ would not only intensify his language but allowed many disciples to walk away without clarifying his statements. I do not recall any other instance where Christ failed to clarify His statements before allowing those who questioned Him to walk away.

[CarcharodonMeg]

Thumbs up if you want Fr. Barron to do a video on the Holy Rosary!

[lukerhale]

I am not a catholic but am a Christian (mormon). I do love to listen to this show, it is so well done, and it is so nice to hear someone who is thinking seriously about religion.

[benabaxter]

@lukerhale Two millenia of people taking faith seriously --- nothing against the wonderful Fr. Barron, but there are even greater voices into which you can delve. I'm in my first reading of Augustine's Confessions at the moment, and it is something special indeed.

[bayreuth79]

@lukerhale I was raised as a Mormon. My father was a Stake President and Bishop while I was growing up. I have met people like Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Monson, Pres. Faust and others. However, there is no question in my mind that this is a false religion. I am not attacking you, so please don't be offended when I say this. But I think there is ample evidence that Mormonism is a false religion. Do you really think that God the father is an exalted man? Or that God denied the Priesthood to blacks?etc

[dumpmist]

@bayreuth79 "Do you really think that [...] God denied the Priesthood to blacks?"

There is little doubt that this once was the common belief, but that we now know better. Personally I think that people should also know better than to believe in Real Presence.

[bayreuth79]

@dumpmis I am not a Catholic, so I do not believe in the Real Presence. What do you mean by "we now know better"? I am of course pleased that Mormons now acknowledge that black people are just as much entitled to the Priesthood as any one else; but you fail to recognize that it is problematic. Brigham Young, who you believe was a Prophet, taught very explicitly that black people have no right to the Priesthood and that they will always be servants and slaves. He taught that, so was he a prophet?

[dumpmist]

@bayreuth79 I'm very sorry for the confusion. I'm not lukerhale, whom you replied to in the comment I replied to, and my objection to Real Presence was meant as a general objection in the discussion.

[falloutfusion]

I saw you at the Atlanta congress, Father. You don't know how much your words of "Become a priest" have been eating at me haha!

[umaara100]

I saw ou there.That day was wonderful.Im thinking about signing up next month to start catachism

[mtrudymm]

Amen & alleluia forever

[CarcharodonMeg]

Father, will you be commenting on the Rosary? I think your descriptive powers would be of great benefit for someone seeking a greater understanding of it.

[shedininja001]

I dont want to eat someone :( i'd rather think its medaphorical I guess.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@shedininja001 Neither did the Jews in John 6! :)

[young1064]

@shedininja001 those are same thoughts those people were thinking who refused to believe and walked away from Jesus 2000 years ago. Jesus knew we would have difficulties accepting this, which is exactly why he repeated the truth with 'Amen Amen I say to you...' - Seriously, take this literally guys...'

[shedininja001]

@young1064 that I have even more issue with, you should not do something you KNOW people will have problems accepting - even more so when you WANT to have a relationship with people :/

[Mystagogia87]

Fr. Barron, as I commented on your Religulous video, I was confirmed at the Easter Vigil. Your writings on the Eucharist and your DVD on it helped to bring me to Catholic faith, and a desire for the Eucharist brought me to Catholicism more than anything else.

But when a non-Catholic friend tags along to mass with me how do I tell them not to take the Eucharist? It's a little awkward and I think people don't understand and feel excluded.

[Blaseboniface]

@Mystagogia87The rules-and they are very important-are to guide us, not to block us, otherwise we are committing idolatry by worshiping the rules. If your friend loves Jesus and believes Jesus is the Eucharist, I would say, it would be a sin (missing the mark) to refuse him the Eucharist. A nominal Catholic who has followed all the rules is not as close to God as those in love with God seeking Communion. A non-Catholic in love with Jesus in the Eucharist is Catholic, and true conversion follows.

[GreenGold33]

@Mystagogia87 Haha, funny predicament, huh? I would just simply explain to your friend that the Eucharist is not just a piece of bread but, in fact, one of our most important beliefs. Once your friend understands that receiving the Eucharist is a major Catholic belief, I'm not sure why he would want to receive the Eucharist.

[newtochrist]

This is very good explanation

[magister343]

Does it not seem odd that what is probably the oldest text to reference the Eucharist, The Didache, makes no mention of the real presence? It doesn't even compare the wine and bread to wine and flesh. Instead over the wine we give thanks for the vine of David and over the bread for the life and knowledge made known through Jesus. The bread is then compared to the church, which is to be gathered together into one from the ends of the earth like the grains of wheat were gathered to become one loaf

[Mystagogia87]

@magister343 The oldest references to the Eucharist are in the epistles of Paul, and you have the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus there. Chapter 14 of the Didache does reinforce what catholics believe about the eucharist and the mass as a participation in Jesus' sacrifice. The bread is compared to the church. Both the "bread" after the consecration, and the church, are the body of the Lord.

Also, the Didache was never recognized as inspired and therefore isn't canonical.

[crimini001]

@magister343 Well, it doesn't seem odd to me, simply because the Church taught the Real Presence and the Didache was not meant to exhaust the Church's teaching on the subject. I do find it odd that some Christians view the Bible as the sole rule for the Christian faith, and yet the Bible itself never tells us which books should be considered Scripture, nor does it tell us what tests a book should be put through to determine whether or not it is scripture.

[Nemesis000000]

I'm dying to hear a response to Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape", have you read it/do you plan to?

[billcat2]

thanks father,i love it when you TEACH...this is what the church should be doing more often.This is what our call for arms should mean:TEACHING!!

thanks again,Father.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

Hey, Father Barron, was Dr. Castañón-Gómez at the Atlanta congress? Did you hear him?

[alfredogal31]

this is a very thorough and clear description of the Eucharist which I am very grateful to hear, but I still wonder what you mean by a Priest having specific authority in the persona of Christ. How does a Priest manage to take the place of Christ and speak for Him?? I thought that all fall short of the glory of God but only remain in him through Christ alone, who has already died and risen for us once. Why does it happen weekly?

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@alfredogal31 It's sacramental, and it is very Jewish. When the Jews celebrated Passover, they believed that they were really and truly making present the original Passover. Same with the Mass and the priest, as Jesus commanded do this in "memory" of me. That word in the Greek is loaded with that Jewish belief of making present really and truly what had occurred in the past - in this case the Last Supper with the priest as Jesus, or as the person of Jesus. Think sacramentally.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@BalladoftheWindfish In other words, when the priest confects the sacrament, it is not the man that accomplishes it, but Christ who accomplishes it through the priest as he (and all in the Mass) participate really and true in the one and only sacrifice.

[alfredogal31]

@BalladoftheWindfish That clears the meaning of "what" the priest does at the Eucharist, but I' still not understanding "why" the Priest has the authority to act on Christ's behalf. I guess it must have to go back to St. Paul's beginning of the Church, right? Once Christ had ascended, he placed specific men to act under His authority as a "living voice" for everything to continue on earth? I'm thinking about what the "priesthood of all believers" would entail... thanks though for your response!

[crimini001]

@alfredogal31 You've got it almost right! Jesus gave His priestly authority to the Apostles. They passed their authority on to their successors (the bishops). They passed theirs on, etc. It is this Christ-ordained priestly authority that allows a priest to act in Christ's stead. All baptized Christians share a general, priestly ministry, just as all Israel did (see Exodus 19:5, 6), but only those with the proper authority can serve as ministerial priests.

[alfredogal31]

EEK St. Peter, St. Peter, sorry! 

[dsydebot]

Powerful, Father! I have shared this with my friends on Facebook!

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but isn't the idea that the elements are "trans*formed*" nearly the opposite of what the Church teaches? That is, the *form* remains the same, requiring the use of the word "transubstantiated" instead, correct? Or maybe I'm just being the theological equivalent of a grammar Nazi...

[bayreuth79]

I am not sure that John's Gospel can be trusted as reliable evidence for the authentic words of Jesus Christ. There are many NT scholars who would argue that perhaps most of the words attributed to Christ in the Gospel of John were never actually said by the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The most substantial problem I have with Christianity is that the main source for all its beliefs and practices, the NT, is probably historically inaccurate- anyone's guess.

[Blaseboniface]

@bayreuth79 The academics "who would argue that perhaps most of the words attributed to Christ in the Gospel of John were not actually said by the historical Jesus of Nazareth" are making a categorical mistake, what Hans Urs Von Balthasar called "anthropomorphic reduction." The Scriptures are living, not dry historical documents, and speak directly to the Soul seeking Truth now, not just then. The sheep recognize the voice of the Shepherd. And the Shepherd knows His sheep.

[bayreuth79]

@Blaseboniface The question then is why should I believe that Hans Urs Von Balthasar was correct about scripture? If the scriptures are "living, not dry historical documents", how is one to know this? It seems to me that Hans Urs Von Balthasar's understanding of scripture presupposes faith that scripture is the word of God; so there is a kind of circularity to your comment. If I thought that John's Gospel was inspired by God and continues to speak to ppl today, I may not have commented. Circular

[Blaseboniface]

@bayreuth79 Before I respond in detail, I would like to get on the same page with you. When you say "presupposes faith", what do you understand "faith" to be? Also, do you understand what is meant by "anthropomorphic reduction". I clearly see where the "circularity" seems to occur, but that is my memory of when I looked at these things during my 22 year period of atheism. I want to understand where you are in your thinking so that I can respond more precisely. I do sense your sincerity.

[bayreuth79]

In answer to your questions.

Faith commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; continues in the confidence of the heart based on conviction; and is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.

By 'anthropomorphic reduction' I understand: reducing the bible to the merely human. If I have understood you correctly, then the question is how does one acquire faith in the bible as more that a human document?

[Blaseboniface]

@bayreuth79 One can approach the Bible with the Mind to determine whether or not God is actually speaking to the Reader, but if the Reader insists that determinations about God are to be made by man, a wall is hit. To go from man towards God to determine the Truth about God is an "anthropomorphic reduction" for if logically examined such an approach assumes that the Mind (thoughts, emotions, and feelings) of Creatures can contain the Creator.

[dumpmist]

@Blaseboniface To me it seems like this approach could lead to a non-well-founded conclusion (in the logic sense).

[Blaseboniface]

@bayreuth79 One way to get past this block is to use an "as if" proof. We proceed "as if" God were speaking to us through the Bible and follow where that leads. In the Old Testament we are told we are made in the Image & Likeness of God and that God's nature is Being, "I am that I am". This makes "Being", not thinking, foundational. We can think about Being, but we must not let thinking get in the way of the experience of "Being".

[Blaseboniface]

@bayreuth79 Experience, not abstract concepts, is foundational to certainty. This means there is a passing through a Dark Night of the Soul where the senses and the mind are utterly calmed so that God may act on our Hearts. This requires courage that only the experience of Love (wanting the good for the other, in this case, God for us) can give, and that experience gives absolute certainty-Faith-and then the Brain can talk about it.

[ferreus]

Aztec drums, eh? Remember that it replaced something.

[WintersAscension]

@ferreus Exactly. Everytime I hear about Aztec drummers or dancing, especially during the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I wince. This is from the same culture who performed human sacrifices!

[13irishsailors]

@WintersAscension but the drums are for Christ now there not for the Aztec gods. I think its a great thing to make the mass apart of your culture as far as making it seem like it belongs to your own people as long as you NEVER change anything you shouldn't. just my opinion :) God bless.

[MobiusCoin]

@13irishsailors Yet Christians continually complain about Christmas being "secularized".

[3abdulmesii7]

@WintersAscension God brings good out of evil; grace builds on nature. If God can change some custom from an act of horrible idolatry to an act which praises Him, Glory and Hallelujah! And if God can change a horrible instrument of execution to a symbol of hope and redemption, Glory again and Hallelujah!

[jmaley3]

I'd love to see a video, Father, on the subject of redemption. Thanks. Keep up the great work!