Jesus Christ leads them gradually to this great mystery, which he knows will prove a stumbling block to many. The chapter begins with the miraculous multiplication of the loaves; then Christ walking on the sea; next he blames the Jews for following him not through faith in his miracles, but for the loaves and fishes, and tells them to labour for that nourishment which perishes not, by believing in Him, whom the Father had sent; and then promises, that what their fathers had received in figure only, the manna, the faithful shall receive in reality; his own body and blood.

Ver. 38. Christ does not say this as if he did not whatever he wished; but he recommends to us his humility. He who comes to me shall not be cast forth, but shall be incorporated with me, because he shall not do his own will, but that of my Father. And therefore he shall not be cast forth; because when he was proud, he did his own will, and was rejected. None but the humble can come to me. An humble and sincere faith is essentially necessary to believe the great mysteries of the Catholic faith, by means of which we come to God and believe in God.

Ver. 41. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. These Jews did not believe that Christ was the true and eternal Son of God, who came down from heaven, and was made flesh, was made man. He speaks of this faith in him, when he calls himself the living bread, the mystical bread of life, that came to give life everlasting to all true and faithful believers. In this sense S. Augustin said, (trac. xxv. p. 489) why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? only believe, and thou hast eaten; but afterwards he passeth to his sacramental and real presence in the holy sacrament.

Ver. 44. Draw him. Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free-will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace. We are drawn to the Father by some secret pleasure, delight, or love, which brings us to the Father. “Believe and you come to the Father,” says S. Austin, “Love, and you are drawn. The Jews could not believe, because they would not.” God, by his power, could have overcome their hardness of heart; but he was not bound to do it; neither had they any right to expect this favour, after the many miracles which they had seen.

Ver. 45. Every one, therefore, that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned of him who I am, cometh to me by faith and obedience. As to others, when the Scripture says they are taught of God, this is to be understood of an interior spiritual instruction, which takes place in the soul, and does not fall under the senses; but not less real on that account, because it is the heart, which hears the voice of this invisible teacher.

Ver. 47. Thus Jesus Christ concludes the first part of his discourse: “Amen, amen, he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life;” which shews that faith is a necessary predisposition to the heavenly bread.

Ver. 48. Because the multitude still insisted in begging for their corporal nourishment and remembering the food that was given to their fathers, Christ, to shew that all were figures of the present spiritual food, answered, that he was the bread of life. Here Jesus Christ proceeds to the second part of his discourse, in which he fully explains what that bread of life is, which he is about to bestow upon mankind in the mystery of the holy Eucharist. He declares then, in the first place, that he is the bread of eternal life, and mentions its several properties; and secondly, he applies to his own person, and to his own flesh, the idea of this bread, such as he has defined it.

Ver. 51. Christ now no longer calls the belief in him, or the preaching of the gospel, the bread that he will give them; but he declares that it is his own flesh, and that flesh which shall be given for the life of the world. This bread Christ then gave, when he gave the mystery of his body and blood to his disciples.

Ver. 52. The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. In most Greek copies we read, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. Christ here promised what he afterwards instituted, and gave at his last supper. He promiseth to give his body and blood to be eaten; the same body (though the manner be different) which he would give on the cross for the redemption of the world. The Jews of Capharnaum were presently scandalized. How (said they) can this man give us his flesh to eat? But notwithstanding their murmuring, and the offence which his words had given, even to many of his disciples, he was so far from revoking, or expounding what he had said of any figurative or metaphorical sense, that he confirmed the same truth in the clearest and strongest terms.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat, &c. And again, (v. 56.) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. I cannot omit taking notice of what S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril, in their commentaries on this place, have left us on these words, How can this man do this? These words which call in question the almighty and incomprehensible power of God, which hinder them, says S. Chrysostom, from believing all other mysteries and miracles: they might as well have said: How could he with five loaves feed five thousand men?

This question, How can he do this? Is a question of infidels and unbelievers. S. Cyril says that How, or, How can he do this? cannot, without folly, be applied to God. 2dly, he calls it a question of blasphemy. 3dly, a Jewish word, for which these Capharnaites deserved the severest punishments. 4thly, He confutes them by the saying of the prophet Isaias, (lv. 9.) that God’s thoughts and ways are as much above those of men, as the heavens are above the earth.

But if these Capharnaites, who knew not who Jesus was, were justly blamed for their incredulous, foolish, blasphemous, Jewish saying, how can he give us his flesh to eat? much more blameable are those Christians, who, against the words of the Scripture, against the unanimous consent and authority of all Christian Churches in all parts of the world, refuse to believe his real presence, and have nothing to say, but with the obstinate Capharnaites, how can this be done? Their answers are the same, or no better, when they tell us that the real presence contradicts their senses, their reason, that they know it to be false.

We may also observe, with divers interpreters, that if Christians are not to believe that Jesus Christ is one and the same God with the eternal Father, and that he is truly and really present in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, it will be hard to deny but that Christ himself led men into these errors, which is blasphemy. For it is evident, and past all dispute, that the Jews murmured, complained, and understood that Christ several times made himself God, and equal to the Father of all.

2ndly, When in this chapter, he told them he would give them his flesh to eat, &c. they were shocked to the highest degree: they cried out, this could not be, that these words and this speech was hard and harsh, and on this very account many that had been his disciples till that time, withdrew themselves from him, and left him and his doctrine.

Was it not then at least high time to set his complaining hearers right, to prevent the blasphemous and idolatrous opinions of the following ages, nay even of all Christian Churches, by telling his disciples at least, that he was only a nominal God, in a metaphorical and improper sense; that he spoke only of his body being present in a figurative and metaphorical sense in the holy Eucharist? If we are deceived, who was it that deceived us but Christ himself, who so often repeated the same points of our belief? His apostles must be esteemed no less guilty in affirming the very same, both as to Christ’s divinity, and his real presence in the holy sacrament, as hereafter will appear.

Compare the words here spoken with those he delivered at his last supper, and you will see that what he promises here was then fulfilled: “this is my body given for you.” Hence, the holy Fathers have always explained this chapter of S. John, as spoken of the blessed sacrament. See the concluding reflexions.

Ver. 53. Because the Jews said it was impossible to give them his flesh to eat, Christ answers them by telling them, that so far from being impossible, it is very necessary that they should eat it. “Unless you eat,” &c. It is not the flesh of merely a man, but it is the flesh of a God, able to make man divine, inebriating him, as it were, with the divinity.

Ver. 54. Unless you eat . . . and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall life for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

Ver. 55. Jesus Christ, to confirm the notion his disciples had formed of a real eating of his body, and to remove all metaphorical interpretation of his words, immediately adds, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;” which could not be so, if, as sectarists pretend, what he gives us in the blessed sacrament is nothing but a bit of bread; and if a figure, certainly not so striking as the manna.

Ver. 58. As the living Father hath sent me, his only, his true Son, to become man; and I live by the Father, proceeding always from him; so he that eateth me, first by faith only, by believing in me; and secondly, he that eateth my body and blood, truly made meat and drink, though after a spiritual manner, (not in that visible, bloody manner as the Capharnaites fancied to themselves) shall live by me, and live for ever, happy in the kingdom of my glory.

Ver. 61. If Christ had wished to say nothing else than that his disciples should be filled with his doctrine, that being his flesh and blood, it would not have been a hard saying; neither would it have shocked the Jews. He had already said as much in the former part of his discourse: but he goes on in still stronger terms, notwithstanding their complaints; and, as they were ignorant how he would fulfil his promise, they left him, and followed the example of the other unbelieving Jews, as all future sectarists have, saying: how can this be done?

Ver. 62. If you cannot believe that I can give you my flesh to eat, now that I am living amongst you, how will you believe, that, after my ascension, I can give you to eat my glorified and immortal flesh, seated on the right hand of the majesty of God?

Ver. 63. If then you shall see, &c. Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

The sense of these words, according to the common exposition, is this: you murmur at my words, as hard and harsh, and you refuse now to believe them: when I shall ascend into heaven, from whence I came into the world, and when my ascension, and the doctrine that I have taught you, shall be confirmed by a multitude of miracles, then shall you and many others believe.

Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life in its very fountain.

It is the spirit that quickeneth, or giveth life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says S. Aug. is sold in the market, and in the shambles; but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament.

The flesh of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says S. Aug. that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness.

When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them.

The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.

Concluding reflexions on this chapter.

The possibility of it he evinced from his divine power, to be exemplified in his miraculous ascension; the necessity of it he established, by permitting those to abandon him who refused to believe it; and the belief of it he enforced on the minds of his disciples, from the consideration that he, their teacher, was the Son of God, and the author of their eternal salvation. The apostles were deeply impressed with these thoughts, previously to the institution of the holy Eucharist; consequently when they beheld Jesus Christ, just before his death, taking bread into his sacred hands; when after blessing it with solemnity, they heard him say, Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be given for you; they must necessarily have concluded, that it was truly his body, which he now gave them to eat, according to his former promise.

And though their reason or senses might have started difficulties, yet all these were obviated by their belief of his being God, and consequently able to effect whatever he pleased, and to make good whatever he said.

Moreover, if we consult tradition, we shall find that the Greek, as well as the Latin Church, has uniformly declared in favour of the literal sense of Christ’s words, as may be seen at large in all Catholic controvertists. The learned author of the Perpetuité de la Foi, and his continuator, Renaudot, in the two additional quarto volumes, have invincibly demonstrated, that the belief of all the Oriental Christians perfectly coincides with that of the Catholic Church, respecting the real presence.

Dr. Philip Nicolai, though a Protestant, candidly acknowledges, in his first book of the Kingdom of Christ, p. 22, “that not only the churches of the Greeks, but also the Russians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Judæans, and the Ethiopians, as many of them as believe in Christ, hold the true and real presence of the body and blood of our Lord.”

This general agreement amongst the many Churches of the Christian world, affords the strongest evidence against Secker and others, who pretend that the doctrine of the real presence is a mere innovation; which was not started till 700 years after Christ’s death. For, how will their supposition accord with the belief of the Nestorians and Eutychians, who were separated from the Church of Rome long before that period, and who were found to agree exactly with Catholics concerning this important tenent? — See this point clearly given in Rutter’s Evangelical Harmony.

This is my Blood.

Which shall be shed. With words so explicit, with the unanimous agreement of the Eastern and Western Churches, how can any Dissenters bring themselves to believe that there is nothing more designed, or given, than a memorial of Christ’s passion and death? Catholics, who believe in the real presence, do certainly renew in themselves the remembrance of our Saviour’s death and passion, with more lively sentiments of devotion than they who believe it to be mere bread and wine.

The outward forms of bread and wine, which remain in the Eucharist, are chiefly designed to signify or represent to us three things; viz. 1. The passion of Christ, of which they are the remembrance; 2. the body and blood of Christ, really, though sacramentally present, of which they are the veil; and 3. everlasting life, of which they are the pledge. — N. B. In speaking of the real presence in the Eucharist, Catholics hold that Christ is corporally and substantially present, but not carnally; i.e. not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which or separated brethren so frequently misrepresent our doctrine.

Haydock Commentary Mark 14:22 Luke 13:26 Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

Luke 13:26 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

These words are addressed particularly to the Jews, because Christ was born of them according to the flesh, eat and drank with them, and taught publicly in their streets; but they apply to us Christians also, for we eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood, when each day we approach the mystical table, and we hear him teaching us in the streets of our souls.

Haydock Commentary Luke 13:26 Luke 22:19-20 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Luke 22:19-20 Which has a footer that states:

“Do this for a commemoration of me”: This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.

Luke 22:19 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

Do this for a commemoration of me. By these words he gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer. It is Christ that chiefly consecrates and changes the elements of bread and wine into his own body and blood; it is he that chiefly and principally forgiveth sins in the sacraments of baptism, penance, &c. It is what S. Aug. so often repeats against the Donatists, that it is Christ that baptizeth, though the instrumental minister be a sinner or a heretic; and this is what all Catholics confess and profess.

The holy sacrifice and sacrament is to be offered and received with a devout and grateful remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and especially of his sufferings and death for all mankind. But to teach that it is a bare, though devout memorial, or a remembrance only, so as to exclude the real presence of Christ, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, is inconsistent with the constant belief and consent of all Christian churches, both of the west and east, and contradicts the plain words of Christ.

The learned bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, desires all Christians to take notice, that Christ does not command them to remember him, but to take his body and blood with a remembrance of him, and his benefits: this is the import of all the words, put together. This is my body: this is my blood: do this in, for, or with a remembrance of me.

This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the Church to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.

Which is given, &c. He does not say, which shall be offered for you, but which is offered; because it was already a true sacrifice, in which Christ was truly present which he offered in advance to his eternal Father, before that which he was going to offer the next day, in a different manner, on the cross. This sacrifice was the consummation of the figurative Pasch, and the promise or pledge of the bloody offering, which Christ would make on the cross. . . . It was not the mere figure of his body, which was crucified, but the true body and the true blood. In the same manner it is both the one and the other which are given, and really present, in the Eucharist.

To renew the memory of what I have this day done, in giving you my body; and what I shall do to-morrow, in delivering my blood and my life for the whole world, do you hereafter what you now see me do. Take bread, break it, sand say, This is my body; and it will become so really and truly, as it now is in my hands.

Haydock Commentary Luke 22:19 Luke 24:30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.

Luke 24:30 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

The ancient Fathers think our Saviour consecrated, on this occasion, and administered the Eucharist to the two disciples. In the Acts of the Apostles, this same term, breaking of bread, is explained without difficulty of the Eucharist. S. Luke seems fond of this manner of expression, to signify that sacrament

Haydock Commentary Luke 24:30 John 6:35-64 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.

And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

John 6:35-64 Which has some footers that state:

[John 6:44] “Draw him”: Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace.

[John 6:54] “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

[John 6:63] “If then you shall see”: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

[John 6:64] “The flesh profiteth nothing”: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

[John 6:64] “Are spirit and life”: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

John 6:35-64 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

Ver. 36. You demand this bread; behold it is before you, and yet you eat it not. I am the bread; to believe in me is to eat me. You see me, but you believe not in me. It is to this place that those words of S. Austin are to be referred: “Why do you prepare your teeth and belly? believe in me, and you have eaten me.” Words which do not destroy the real presence, of which he is not speaking in this verse.

Like the other miracles, you can still visit the diocese where this happened today to see the evidence.

Real Presence Legnica Real Presence – Other Eucharistic Miracles For a full list of Eucharistic Miracles, visit Blessed Carlo Acutis’s website, miracolieucaristici.org.

The Joy of the Faith YouTube channel has several videos going over the scientific evidence of Eucharistic miracles.

Real Presence Proven By The Bible The Bible repeatedly proves the existence of the Real Presence.

Below are several passages in the Bible and authorative interpretations that prove the Real Presence.

Genesis 14:18 But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God

Genesis 14:18 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

[Melchisedech was a priest] offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm.

Many Protestants confess, that this renowned prince of Chanaan, was also a priest; but they will not allow that his sacrifice consisted of bread and wine. In what then? for a true priest must offer some real sacrifice. If Christ, therefore, be a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, whose sacrifice was not bloody, as those of Aaron were, what other sacrifice does he now offer, but that of his own body and blood in the holy Mass, by the ministry of his priests?

Haydock Commentary Genesis 14:18 Exodus 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another: Manhu! which signifieth: What is this! for they knew not what it was. And Moses said to them: This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat.

Exodus 16:15 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

Yet this wonderful bread was only a figure of that which Jesus Christ promised to give, and as the figure must come beneath the reality, what we receive in the blessed Eucharist, must undoubtedly be something better than manna. Would Zuinglius and Calvin attempt then to persuade us, that Christ appointed their mere sacramental bread, to supersede and excel the favour of manna granted to the fathers, who are dead? Mere bread cannot stand in competition with this miraculous food.

But the truth which it foreshewed, according to all the doctors of the Church, I mean the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, in the blessed sacrament, under the appearances of bread and wine, are surely more excellent than manna itself. It is miraculously brought upon our altars by the words of Jesus Christ, spoken by his priests at Mass, and dispensed to infinite multitudes, in the most distant places from each other, and even in the smallest particle.

Haydock Commentary Exodus 16:15 Exodus 16:31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed white, and the taste thereof like to flour with honey.

Exodus 16:31 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

Manna. This miraculous food, with which the children of Israel were nourished and supported during their sojourning in the wilderness, was a figure of the bread of life, which we receive in the blessed sacrament, for the food and nourishment of our souls, during the time of our mortal pilgrimage, till we come to our eternal home, the true land of promise: where we shall keep an everlasting sabbath: and have no further need of sacraments.

Haydock Commentary Exodus 16:31 Matthew 26:26-28 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Matthew 26:26-28 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

And whilst they were at supper. Jesus Christ proceeds to the institution of the blessed Eucharist, that the truth or reality may succeed to the figure in one and the same banquet; and to impress more deeply upon our minds the remembrance of so singular a favour, his last and best gift to man. He would not institute it at the beginning of his ministry; he first prepares his disciples for the belief of it, by changing water into wine, and by the miraculous multiplication of the loaves.

Jesus took bread, and blessed it. S. Luke and S. Paul say, he gave thanks. This blessing and giving thanks, was not the consecration itself, but went before it.

This is my body. He does not say, this is the figure of my body—but, this is my body.

Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely this is my body; which plainly implies transubstantiation.

Catholics maintain, after the express words of Scripture, and the universal tradition of the Church, that Christ in the blessed sacrament is corporally and substantially present; but not carnally; not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which our separated brethren misrepresent the Catholic doctrine

If Protestants, in opposition to the primitive Fathers, deny the connection of the sixth chapter of John with the institution, it is from the fear of giving advantage to the doctrine of transubstantiation, says Dr. Clever, Protestant bishop of Bangor.

This is my body. By these words, and his divine power, Christ changed that which before was bread into his own body; not in that visible and bloody manner

Yet so, that the elements of bread and wine were truly, really, and substantially changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Christ, whose divine power cannot be questioned, could not make use of plainer words than these set down by S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul to the Corinthians: this is my body; this is my blood: and that the bread and wine, at the words of consecration are changed into the body and blood of Christ, has been the constant doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, in all ages, both in the east and west, both in the Greek and Latin churches; as may be seen in our controvertists, and particularly in the author of the books of the Perpetuity of the Faith.

The first and fundamental truths of the Christian faith, by which we profess to believe the mystery of the holy Trinity, i.e. one God and three divine Persons, and of the incarnation, i.e. that the true Son of God was made man, was born, suffered and died upon the cross for our salvation, are no less obscure and mysterious, no less above the reach of human capacity, than this of the real presence: nor are they more clearly expressed in the sacred text. This change the Church hath thought proper to express by the word, transubstantiation: and it is as frivolous to reject this word, and to ask where it is found in the holy Scriptures, as to demand where we read in the Scriptures, the words, trinity, incarnation, consubstantial to the Father

Luther fairly owned that he wanted not an inclination to deny Christ’s real presence in the sacrament, by which he should vex and contradict the Pope; but this, said he, is a truth that cannot be denied: The words of the gospel are too clear. He and his followers hold, what is called impanation, or consubstantiation; i.e. that there is really present, both the substance of the bread and wine, and also the substance of Christ’s body and blood. — Zuinglius, the Sacramentarians, and Calvinists deny the real presence; and hold that the word is, (est) importeth no more, than it signifieth, or is a figure of Christ’s body; as it hath been lately translated, this represents my body, in a late translation, or rather paraphrase, 1729. I shall only produce here the words and reasoning of Luther: which may deserve the attention of the later reformers.

[Quoting Luther] “Who but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. . . .

Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Thus far Luther; who, in another place, in his usual manner of writing, hesitates not to call the Sacramentarians, men possessed, prepossessed, and transpossessed by the devil.

My body. In S. Luke is added, which is given for you. Granted these words, which is given, may bear this sense, which shall be given, or offered on the cross; yet as it was the true body of Christ, that was to be crucified, so it was the same true body which Christ gave to his apostles, at his last supper, though in a different manner. — The holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice, succeeding to all the sacrifices of the ancient law, which Christ commanded all the priests of the new law to offer up.

Luther was forced to own, that divers Fathers, taught this doctrine; as Irenæus, Cyprian, Augustin: and in his answer to Henry VIII. of England: The king, says he, brings the testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the sacrifice of the mass, for my part, I care not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches, like that of Henry, stand against me. The Centurists of Magdeburg own the same to have been the doctrine of Cyprian, Tertullian, and also of Irenæus, in the end of the second age; and that S. Greg. of Nazianzen, in the fourth age, calls it an unbloody sacrifice;

Drink ye all of this. This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says Mark xiv. 23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice, any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and as I may say, with the same breath, bid the apostles do so, in these words, (S. Luke xxii. 19,) Do this for a commemoration of me.

It is a point of discipline, which the Church for good reasons may allow, or disallow to the laity, without any injury done to the receiver, who according to the Catholic doctrine of the real presence, is made partaker of the same benefit under one kind only; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John vi. . . . When our adversaries object to us, in opposition to the very clear and precise proofs we produce from the primitive writers of the doctrine of the real presence, that is called sometimes bread, a figure, a sign; we reply, that they can only mean that the outward forms of bread and wine, which remain after consecration, are a figure, a sign, a commemoration. They nowhere teach that the consecrated species are barely figures or signs, and nothing more.

This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. The Greek text in S. Luke shews that the words shall be shed, or is shed, cannot, in construction, be referred to the blood of Christ shed on the cross, but to the cup, at the institution of the holy sacrament. This cup (says Luke xxii. 20,) is the New Testament in my blood; which cup shall be shed, or is shed for you. S. Paul also saith: this cup is the New Testament in my blood. And if any one will needs insist upon the words, as related by S. Matthew and S. Mark, the sense is still the same; viz. that this cup was not wine, but the blood of Christ, by which the New Testament was confirmed, or alliance betwixt God and man.

For many. S. Luke and S. Paul, instead of many, say for you. Both are joined in the canon of the mass. Euthymius says, for many, is the same as for all mankind. This new alliance was made with all, and the former with the Jews only.

As the Old Testament was dedicated with blood in these words: This is the blood of the Testament, (Heb. ix. 20,) so here is the institution of the New Testament, in Christ’s blood, by these words: This is the blood of the New Testament, which God contracts with you, to communicate to you his grace and justice, by the merits of this blood, which shall be shed for you on the cross; and which is here mystically shed for many, for the remission of sins: for the Greek is in the present tense in all the three evangelists, and in S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi, and the Latin Vulgate of S. Luke, xxii. 19.

Haydock Commentary Matthew 26:26-28 Mark 14:22-24 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Mark 14:22-24 According to the Haydock Commentary, this means:

This is my Body.

This which I now give, and which you now receive; for the bread is not the figure only of Christ, but is changed into the true body of Christ; and he himself says, The bread, which I will give you, is my flesh. But the flesh of Christ is not seen, on account of our infirmity; for if we were allowed to see with our eyes the flesh and blood of Jesus, we should not dare to approach the blessed sacrament. Our Lord therefore condescending to our weakness, preserves the outward species of bread and wine, but changes the bread and wine into the reality of flesh and blood.

These words are so plain, that it is difficult to imagine others more explicit. Their force and import will however appear in a still stronger light, if we consider the formal promise Christ had made to his apostles, as related by S. John, that he would give them his flesh to eat, that same flesh he was to deliver up for the life of the world. He on that occasion confirmed with remarkable emphasis of expression the reality of this manducation, assuring them that his flesh was meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; and when some of the disciples were shocked at such a proposal, he still insisted that unless they eat his flesh, they should have no life in them.

Undeniable Proof of The Real Presence of Christ

Denial of the Real Presence

The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is denied by most of the world; Non-Christian and Christians alike.

Non-Christians obviously don’t believe it.

And most people that call themselves “Christian” don’t believe it.

Even most people that call themselves “Catholic” deny it.

Only 31% of so-called “Catholics” believe in the Real Presence, according to a Pew Research survey!

Therefore, I will prove that the Real Presence is true in this article.

Please read the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on the Eucharist, Blessed Sacrament, and the Real Presence; if you aren’t sure what these terms mean.

The rest of this article will assume that you are familiar with those terms.

If you are a non-Christian, then you will probably be interested in the Eucharistic Miracles section.

If you are a non-Catholic Christian, then you will probably be interested in the Bible and Early Church sections.

Finally, if you are a Catholic, then you will probably be interested in the Catholic section.

Real Presence Proven By Eucharistic Miracles The biggest evidence of the Real Presence, especially for non-believers, are the phenomena of the Eucharistic Miracles.

Eucharistic Miracles are borne from disbelief, which you will learn from the cases below.

There have been several Eucharistic Miracles since the First Century, and they continue to happen (even in the 21st century)!

Below are some of the most famous cases of Eucharistic Miracles.

Real Presence – Miracle of Lanciano The first Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the most famous one, the Miracle of Lanciano.

Real Presence Lanciano 3 In 750 AD there was a priest who was doubting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

When the priest said the words of consecration during Mass the wine coagulated into 5 globules of blood.

A ring of flesh also formed around the consecrated bread.

The local archbishop quickly approved the miracle, after he launched an investigation.

The first study on this miracle occurred in 1574 by Archbishop Antonio Gaspar Rodríguez..

They weighed all 5 globules of blood separately, and all 5 weighed the same amount, despite being different sizes.

Moreover, all 5 weighed together weighed the same amount as each weighed separately!

Every combination of weighing them separately or together always equaled exactly 15.85g!

And scientists always confirm the same results in all subsequent tests throughout the centuries.

Of course, this is a miracle itself!

Real Presence Lanciano 4 The flesh and blood still exist today in the Church of San Francesco in Lanciano, Italy.

Dr. Edward Linoli, professor of anatomy, analyzed the flesh and blood in 1971, by request of the current archbishop of Lanciano.

Linoli determined the flesh was human cardiac tissue of the myocardium, left ventricle.

He also determined that the coagulated blood was indeed human and type AB blood.

Scientists also found type AB blood in the Holy Shroud of Turin.

Moreover, scientists determined the flesh and blood to be fresh, instead of 1200 years old!

Human tissue and blood decompose much quicker than 1200 years, so this is a miracle itself!

Scientists found no trace of preservatives in the flesh and blood either.

And Linoli also determined that only a modern surgeon could cut out the heart tissue with that kind of precision.

So it would have been impossible for this to be a medieval hoax!

Watch the Miracle of Lanciano Medical Report by Dr. Linoli video by The Joy of the Faith on YouTube for an English translation of Dr. Linoli’s report.

Real Presence Lanciano 2 Real Presence – Miracle of Santarém The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Santarem.

On February 16th 1247, a woman consulted a sorceress over her husband, whom she thought was unfaithful.

The sorceress demanded a consecrated host for her help. The woman obliged by going to a Mass.

She received the host, but quickly spit it into her veil and wrapped it when nobody was looking.

Before she could even leave the church, her veil and hand started dripping blood.

People ran up to her and tried to help her, scaring her away.

So she ran out of the church! She put the host in a trunk in her home.

After her husband came home that night, the host started emitting a bright light.

At that point, she had to tell her husband everything.

The next day they back to the church, she confessed, and told the priest everything.

Her priest and several others went to her home to retrieve the host and take it back to the church.

The priest took it back to the church, with a procession of adorers, and it bled for 3 whole days!

Her priest placed it in a holy reliquary made of beeswax.

In 1340, a priest opened the tabernacle and found the vase made of beeswax in pieces.

In its place was a crystal vase.

They found the blood of this host mixed with the beeswax inside the crystal vase.

Throughout the centuries the host still bleeds on occasions, and you can still see the host and blood today!

Real Presence Santarem Real Presence – Miracle of Bolsena The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Bolsena.

Like the Miracle of Lanciano, this miracle happened when a priest was doubting the Real Presence during Mass.

In 1263 the doubting priest was celebrating Mass in Bolsena, Italy.

When he consecrated the Eucharist, the host started bleeding onto the altar.

The priest interrupted Mass and travelled to a nearby town where Pope Urban IV was visiting.

After confessing his doubt of the Real Presence to the Pope, he asked the Pope to investigate the miracle.

After an investigation, the Pope confirmed the miracle.

He ordered that the host and altar cloth be on display in the Cathedral of Orvieto.

Unfortunately, they lost the hosts during the French Revolution.

However, the bloodstained cloth is still on display in the Cathedral of Orvieto, Italy today.

This miraculous event inspired Pope Urban IV to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi and commission St. Thomas Aquinas to write the texts for the Mass and Office of this Feast.

Real Presence Bolsena Real Presence – Miracle of Siena The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Siena.

On August 14th, 1730, thieves broke into the Church of St. Francis in Siena and stole a gold ciborium that contained hundreds of consecrated hosts.

The thieves kept the gold ciborium (probably sold it for money).

But a few days later the hosts turned up in an offering box at a different church in Siena.

Instead of consuming the hosts, the priests put them in a new ciborium so they could deteriorate naturally.

But that never happened; they stayed fresh, like they were brand new hosts.

50 years after the theft and return of the miraculous hosts, the Church conducted an investigation into the miracle.

The Minister General of the Franciscan Order examined a host and found that it still tasted fresh and incorrupt.

Nine years later Archbishop Tiberio Borghese of Siena conducted a more detailed investigation.

Using microscopes his scientists found no evidence of deterioration on the 59 year old hosts!

Another experiment the Archbishop conducted was to place unconsecrated hosts in a locked box for a decade.

After that decade was over, they found out that the unconsecrated hosts deteriorated; unlike the miraculous consecrated hosts that retained their freshness!

In 1914 and 1922, some of the best scientists in the world examined the hosts again.

They appeared to be just normal unleavened wheat flour bread to these scientists.

And the scientists couldn’t explain how they stayed fresh for almost two centuries.

As of today, it has been almost 292 years, and the hosts are still fresh!

Real Presence Siena Real Presence – Miracle of Buenos Aires The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Buenos Aires.

On Aug. 15, 1996, a priest found a discarded host on the ground in the church after Mass in Buenos Aires.

He placed the host in a bowl of water and then into the tabernacle to dissolve, as is standard procedure.

A week later they moved it into a new tabernacle, and they discovered a reddish substance.

Eventually the local bishop (future Pope Francis) ordered an investigation.

Bishop Bergoglio also ordered an investigation into similar incidents that happened in the same church in 1992 and 1994.

Real Presence Buenos Aires Dr. Edward Linoli (who investigated the Lanciano miracle) and a few others studied samples of the bloody hosts.

They all came to the conclusion that there were fragments of flesh and white blood cells in the hosts!

Moreover, they discovered that the flesh fragments were heart muscle and the blood was type AB.

Everything was the same as in the Lanciano samples from over a millenia ago!

On March 2, 2004, they brought in Professor Frederick Zugibe of Columbia University.

He was the leading expert in forensic medicine of the heart.

Dr. Zugibe didn’t even know the sample he was studying came from consecrated hosts.

He has an official letter saying that he wasn’t privy to the history of the material before examining it.

And he still came to the same conclusions as the other scientific experts!

Real Presence Buenos Aires 2 Real Presence – Miracle of Chirattakonam The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Chirattakonam.

On April 28th, 2001, there was adoration at St. Mary’s parish in Chirattakonam, India.

The priest noticed there were three red dots that appeared on the consecrated hosts after a few moments.

He pointed it out to a few people.

They didn’t know what to make of it, so he put it back in the tabernacle.

About a week later, he took it out of the tabernacle.

And the red dots seemed to inexplicably rearrange themselves into the face of Christ.

Real Presence Chirattakonam Real Presence – Miracle of Tixtla The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Tixtla.

On October 21, 2006, during distribution of Communion, a priest found a host effusing a reddish substance.

The diocese ordered an investigation to discern if this was legitimate or fraud.

The microscopic examination revealed that the host was the source of the human blood.

They determined the blood was coming from within because the outer blood was coagulating.

However, blood under it was still fresh.

Moreover, the examination revealed the blood type was AB, consistent with all other miracles.

Watch the Interview With Doctor That Analyzed The Eucharistic Miracle of Tixtla, Mexico video by The Joy of the Faith on YouTube for an interview with the doctor that analyzed this host.

Real Presence Tixla Real Presence – Miracle of Sokolka The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Sokolka.

On Oct. 12, 2008, at a church in Sokolka, during the distribution of Communion a consecrated host fell to the ground.

The sacristan placed the host in a container of water to dissolve and locked in a safe.

Only the pastor and sacristan had the key to this safe.

A week later, they opened the safe, and there was a red blood stain in the middle of the host.

The sacristan told the priest who contacted the archbishop for an investigation.

The archbishop ordered the host secretly locked in a corporal in a tabernacle for 3 years.

During this time, he decided to investigate.

By the beginning of 2009, the host had transformed into what looked like a blood clot.

It has not changed its appearance since then.

The archbishop had several scientists examine the remaining blood clot fragment in early 2009.

They determined that part of the host transformed into the heart tissue of a person near death.

Part of the bread still remains intertwined with the heart tissue, as if the bread is transforming into a heart.

Real Presence Sokolka Real Presence – Miracle of Legnica The next Eucharistic Miracle that we will learn about is the Miracle of Legnica.

On Christmas Day 2013, in Legnica, a priest picked up a consecrated host that fell to the floor.

Per the rules, he placed it in a plate of water to dissolve. A reddish color started appearing on the host.

He then asked Bishop of Legnica to investigate this incident.

Testing began in 2014, and a couple years later the results determined that the host contained human heart tissue.

Just like the Sokolka miracle, scientists determined the heart tissue was of a person nearly dead from bodily trauma.

A third way to prove Catholicism true is to show how the Bible, early Christians, and miracles prove the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

I do so in this article here:

https://christtheking.info/undeniable-proof-of-the-real-presence-of-christ/

But since many won't click this link, let me reply to my own comment here with the text from that article that proves the Bible, early Christians, and scientific evidence proves the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Papal Supremacy Is Essential To Christianity

In conclusion, it is pretty obvious that papal supremacy is essential to Christianity.

Firstly, Christ founded a Church (not the Bible), and gave the keys to St. Peter.

Secondly, St. Peter was inarguably the leader of this church after Christ’s Ascension.

Thirdly, all the Early Christians affirmed the view that the Pope was the head of the Church.

Thus, it is certain that only heretics and schismatics can deny this truth that Christians have always believed.

Moreover, to deny this truth given by Christ, means to deny Him, as He is the Truth (John 14:6).

And to deny this Truth means He will deny you before the Father (Matthew 10:33).

So if you deny papal supremacy, repent, and convert to Catholicism!

Assent to papal supremacy, and we will welcome you as Brothers of Christ!

Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church. ibid., 55[52]:1

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source. ibid., 59:14

Firmilian, d. c. 269 AD

[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter. collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]

Eusebius of Caesarea, d. 30 May 339 AD

And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches. Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]

And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’. ibid., 5:4:1–2

[Regarding the Pascha (Easter) controversy of 190 AD] Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom. ibid., 5:23:1–24:11

Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches. ibid., 24:18

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, d. 386 AD

The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]

[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]. ibid., 6:14

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]. ibid., 17:27

St. Ephrem the Syrian, d. 373 AD

[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures. Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]

St. Athanasius of Alexandria, d. 2 May 373 AD

If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew…let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province. Council of Sardica, Canon 3, [A.D.342]

When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship. Defence before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239 [A.D. 356]

Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35 [A.D. 362]

Pope St. Damasus I, d. 11 December 384 AD

Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]

St. Jerome, d. 30 September 420 AD

‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division. Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]

Pope St. Innocent I, d. 12 March 417 AD

In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]

St. Augustine. d. 28 August 430 AD

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]

Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]

Council of Ephesus, 431 AD

Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’. Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’. ibid., session 3

Pope St. Leo the Great, d. 10 November 461 AD

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. ibid., 10:2–3

Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head. ibid., 14:11

Pope St. Hormisdas, d. 6 August 523 AD

The Formula of Hormisdas settled the first schism between East and West in 519 AD, and was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.

For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

…[Condemns heretics]…

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides.

I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome. Formula of Hormisdas

Pope St. Agatho, d. January 681 AD

Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine…

This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere…

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end…

Consequently, therefore, according to the rule of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, she [Rome] also confesses and preaches that there are in him two natural wills and two natural operations. Epistle of St. Agatho to the Council of Constantinople III

Pope Adrian I, d. 25 December 795

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun…and [exalt] the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine…

But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth…

For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him…

For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors. Epistle of Pope Hadrian to The Council of Nicaea II

Papal Supremacy Is Proven By The Bible And Early Church

Papal Supremacy Is Denied By Heretics And Schismatics

Papal supremacy is denied by Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics.

Regarding the Eastern Heterodox:

They believe that Christ didn’t give the keys only to Peter, but rather to all the Apostles equally.

Thus, they argue that all bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are equal to the other bishops in authority.

They acknowledge the Pope to be the “first amongst equals” of all bishops but deny his universal authority.

Therefore, they deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over them and rationalize the separation of being in communion with Rome.

Regarding the Protestant-Heretics:

The beliefs vary, depending on the “denomination” but the common theme is that they reject papal supremacy.

On the other hand, Catholics believe in Papal Supremacy, as dogmatically defined in the First Vatican Council.

Obviously, the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics don’t assent to that council.

Then how else can we prove that us Catholics are correct and the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics are not?

Both Sacred Scripture and the Early Church documents confirm our interpretation, as I will prove below.

The Bible Proves Papal Supremacy

Firstly, Scripture affirms that the Pope (sometimes referred to as “Peter”) has supremacy over the Church.

There are certainly several passages in the Bible that affirm St. Peter is the leader of the Church after Christ’s Ascension.

For instance, read the Book of Acts, which follows the 4 Gospels.

Certainly, it is quite obvious that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles.

Even St. Paul defers to St. Peter on matters of the Faith (even though rebuking him in Galatians 2).

And what was St. Peter when he died? St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. He was the first Pope.

Moreover, St. Peter’s name generally comes before the rest of the Apostles when listed.

The Bible even mentions St. Peter more often than all the other disciples put together!

I will therefore focus on a select few passages of the Bible below.

Also, I will show that the great Eastern Doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, affirms the Catholic understanding.

Christ says that He is giving St. Peter supreme authority over the Church:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:

When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes…Peter as the mouth and head of the Apostles answers for all… Christ then proceeds to show that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,”. That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein showing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd. Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. St. John Chrysostom on Matthew 16:19

Christ asks St. Peter to feed His sheep:

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. John 21:15-17

According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:

Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep. A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him. St. John Chrysostom on John 21:15-17

St. Peter leads the Christians after the Ascension of Christ:

In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:) Acts of Apostles 1:15

According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:

Peter, having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. St. John Chrysostom on Acts of Apostles 1:15

And like I mentioned before, virtually all of the rest of the Book of Acts shows St. Peter in charge.

Again, St. Peter gave the speech to the disciples before Pentecost (Acts of Apostles 1:15-22).

He was also the one that gave the speech to the people of Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41).

St. Peter was also the one who clarified that the Apostles should baptize gentiles (Acts 11:5-17).

Moreover, St. Peter gave the final word condemning Judaizers in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11).

In conclusion, it is clear that Christ handed over the keys of His Church to St. Peter, who lead the Church after the Ascension.

The Church Fathers Prove Papal Supremacy

Secondly, the Church Fathers, even the eastern non-Roman ones (like St. John Chrysostom), accepted papal supremacy.

So the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics should have enough humility to accept that there isn’t precedence for denying papal supremacy.

Moreover, all the Christians of the Early Church accepted papal supremacy, so the Protestant-Heretics have no basis for their claim against Roman Catholicism.

Below are the Early Church writings, in chronological order, regarding papal supremacy.

Note: Many of these writings existed before Emperor Constantine.

For whatever reason, some Protestant-Heretics believe that Constantine created the Catholic Church.

Constantine wasn’t even a Catholic – He was part of the heretical Arian sect, which denied Christ’s divinity.

(Although a clergy member did baptize Constantine on his deathbed, and he made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire, leading many Christians to venerate him as a Saint).

And this heretical Arian sect was against Catholicism, which is why Constantine called the Council of Nicaea.

But there are several writings before Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

And since these writings mention papal supremacy, this refutes the weird anti-Catholic claim that Constantine created Catholicism.

Pope St. Clement I, d. 99 AD

Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy. Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]

St. Ignatius of Antioch, d. c. 108/140 AD

Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father. Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]

You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force. ibid., 3:1

St. Dionysius of Corinth, d. c. 199 AD

For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]

Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement. ibid., 4:23:11

St. Irenaeus, d. c. 202 AD

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]

Clement of Alexandria, d. c. 215 AD

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]. Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]

Tertullian, d. c. 220 AD

For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]. Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]

[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church. Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]

Origen, d. c. 253 AD

[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]

St. Cyprian, d. September 14, 258 AD

On [Peter] [Christ] builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]

Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church. Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]

Another way to prove Catholicism true is to show how both the Bible and early Christians show how Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church under a regent or temporal leader (since Christ is the Spiritual Leader), which we call the Pope.

I do so in this article here:

https://christtheking.info/papal-supremacy-is-proven-by-the-bible-and-early-church/

But since many won't click this link, let me reply to my own comment here with the text from that article that proves both the Bible and early Christians assented to St. Peter and his successors as the temporal leader of the Christian Church.

St. Paul echoes Christ in saying this:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

Now a lot of Protestants will read that and say, “But they were speaking figuratively…”

Were they?

What did the early Christians believe about Communion?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 50 – c. 98/117 AD

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, writes:

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter VII

Obviously, he believed Communion was really the Body and Blood of Christ.

Moreover, regarding heretics, St. Ignatius says:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VII

So St. Ignatius basically said that anyone who denies the Real Presence are heretics 1400 years before Protestantism existed.

St. Justin Martyr, c. 100 – c. 165 AD

St. Justin Martyr said this:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. The First Apology, Chapter 66

St. Irenaeus, c. 130 – c. 202 AD

St. Irenaeus also said:

He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2

So it’s rather obvious the Christian apologists in the first couple of centuries believed in the Real Presence.

This is what all orthodox Catholic Christians believed in the first 1500 years before the heresy of Protestantism.

If you still don’t believe in the Real Presence, then read about Eucharistic Miracles here or here:

http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/list.html

https://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

*Note: Some Protestants (Lutherans, some Anglicans) believe in the Real Presence.

They still deny Transubstantiation, though, which is what all Christians believed for 1500 years.

Read more about Transubstantiation here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Protestantism Error # 4 – Belittling the Virgin Mary, Mother of God

The disrespect many Protestants give to the Blessed Mother of God cannot be understated.

It is true that after the wedding at Cana miracle she isn’t featured much in the Gospels.

However, this is not to diminish her importance but rather to put the spotlight on her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mary, being the most humble of all women, would have supported the focus being on her Most High Son.

But since Mary is not featured, the Protestants will still say, “Why is she important then?”

Well let me throw it back at you, my dear Protestant reader…

Out of the billions of women that ever lived…

God the Father chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Daughter to be the Mother of His Son.

God the Son chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Mother to bear Him, raise Him, and love Him.

And God the Holy Ghost chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Spouse to conceive of the Son of God.

So out of the billions of women that have ever lived didn’t God Himself think the Virgin Mary was important?

It appears so. Here’s what the Virgin Mary says in the Bible:

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Luke 1:48

If God exalted her to such a high position, then who are you to say she isn’t important?

When you die and are in front of Christ, what will your answer be when He asks:

“Why did you not find my Mother as important as My Father, the Spirit and Myself found her to be?”

What will your answer be to Our Most Glorious and High Lord Jesus Christ?

Will you just say, “Well Martin Luther didn’t think she was so great…”???

HOW DARE YOU!? For shame!

The arrogance of men to judge Our Lady as unimportant when God Himself has exalted her is frightening…

But was Mary really a perpetual virgin?

Christians have believed she was a perpetual virgin for most of Church history.

Again, heretics came along to challenge this idea, but orthodox Christians can explain this pretty simply.

When the Bible talks about Jesus’s “brothers” and “sisters” it was never meant literally.

It was meant in the same way as you call a close friend or family member “brother” or “sister.”

The term used could refer not only to blood-siblings, but also cousins, family friends and personal friends.

St. Jerome, the same person that wrote the Latin Vulgate, the first Holy Bible, actually defended Mary’s perpetual virginity in this work here:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Read that, and you will see how the writer of the original New Testament canon read the Greek New Testament as not saying that Christ had siblings.

But should we pray to Mary and the other Saints?

Why not? Protestants will say that by praying to Mary and the Saints that we are worshipping them.

We aren’t. We worship the Trinitarian God alone.

St. James says this:

…pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. James 5:16

In other words, the more righteous a person is the more that God listens to their prayers.

And who is more righteous than those who have already attained Salvation and are perfected in God’s glory?

And of those, who is more revered than the one woman out of billions that the Trinitarian God chose to become the Mother of God?

This is why we pray to the Saints, and Mary especially.

It’s not because they are gods, but rather because we know that they are in the presence of God.

They are God’s friends for all Eternity.

And in addition to petitioning God with our prayers it makes sense to ask the greatest friends of God to pray with us as well.

Doesn’t this make sense? You would ask the holiest person you know to pray for you, correct?

Then why in the world won’t you ask the closest people to God to pray for you?

In addition to asking for Our Lady’s help, we should also acknowledge that her Son sends her as a messenger to us.

Click here to learn more about the many approved Marian Apparitions:

https://media.ascensionpress.com/2020/05/30/the-ultimate-guide-to-marian-apparitions/

*Note: Some “High Church” Protestants (Lutherans, some Anglicans) venerate Mary.

Give Up Protestantism, and Come Home!

In conclusion, Protestantism just doesn’t make sense.

Protestantism completely contradicts the Bible.

Protestantism also was non-existent in the first 1500 years of Christianity.

It’s really nothing more than the ideology of people that want to be their own Pope.

Speaking of Popes, another criticism or Protestants is that there are bad Popes, Bishops and Priests.

There have also been many Saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests.

Here is a list of canonized Popes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canonised_popes

That’s a lot of Saints!

For the first few hundred years of Christianity almost ALL were Saints!

But back to the point of bad Catholics… Unfortunately, you are are correct.

There have been numerous bad Christians in the past 2000 years. That’s just par for the course.

It doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. It still is.

The majority of all Christians, including Catholics, are sinners. Many are great sinners.

Many Christians that die in unrepentant sin will go to Hell. It’s sad.

But the good news is that you don’t have to!

Become Catholic. Instead of just having Faith in Christ, have Faith and keep His Commandments.

Become a part of His Church, even though it is full of flawed sinners.

The Church is the Hospital for Sinners.

So come back and get the Sacraments, which are Medicine for the Soul!

Give up Protestantism. Become Catholic.

The Top 4 Errors of Protestantism

Protestantism, the Heresy that Won’t Go Away

Protestantism is a heretical cult that has been around for a little over 500 years.

It has corrupted many souls away from authentic Christianity.

Usually, when I encounter a Protestant, I try to gently help them see the errors of this false ideology.

I usually send them something like a link to this wonderful Fisheaters article here:

https://www.fisheaters.com/challenge.html

That Fisheaters challenge was pretty helpful in my own conversion to Catholicism.

I also like to link Protestants to the Didache, and the writing of the earliest Church Fathers:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and others.

The intent of this is to show that the Early Christians were all very Catholic.

But I still get pushback, mostly because people are unwilling to read.

So the intent of this article will be to summarize what I see to be the top 4 errors of Protestantism.

And then I shall refute these errors in a succinct manner, so that you do not have to read as much.

Still, I encourage you to read the primary sources I am linking, instead of just taking my word for it.

Protestantism Error # 1 – Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is Latin for Scripture Alone or Bible Alone.

This is usually the defense Protestants give regarding not needing the authority of the Catholic Church.

But Protestantism started in the early 16th century.

There was literally almost 1500 years of Christianity before then.

Were all the Christians in those first 1500 years heretics because they followed the authority of Bishops?

Hopefully, nobody with any common sense would consider all of Christianity heretical until Martin Luther came along…

What Does the Bible Say About Sola Scriptura?

So the Bible doesn’t say that the Bible is the sole Christian authority.

Don’t believe me? Then look yourself. Find the passage and contact me here.

Ok, some of you say “Read 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Ephesians 3:4!”

The thing to understand here is context. You have to read the whole chapter to understand what is being said.

In 1 Corinthians 4 St. Paul is talking about certain priests being harshly judged by the Corinthians.

And in response St. Paul tell the Corinthians to not exalt one another above what is written.

By referring to “what is written” St. Paul is referring to practicing the virtue of humility written in Scripture.

See here for more info:

https://haydockcommentary.com/1-corinthians-4

Ephesians 3:4 (and 3:3) is just referring to reading Ephesians 2 and understanding it.

If you read it in context it doesn’t really go much deeper that that…

The point here is: context matters!

What about the Bible itself? Who canonized the Bible?

Pope Damasus I and the bishops of the Catholic Church canonized the Bible.

When did they canonize the Bible?

They canonized the Bible in 382 AD at the Council of Rome.

So yes, my dear Protestant, the Catholics canonized your New Testament.

Read here about the history of the process to canonize the Bible:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

This is where some readers would point out that the New Testament writings existed in the First Century.

This is true.

It is also true that from the First to Fourth Centuries false teachers wrote many other “Gospels” and “Epistles”.

Heretics, such as Judaizers, Gnostics and others used these other books.

If you reject Catholic authority, then why not count these other books as authoritative?

Because, even though you reject the Church, deep in your heart you know the Catholic canon is True.

The only difference between Catholic canon and Protestant canon is that you reject seven books of the Old Testament.

Why? Because heresiarch Martin Luther decided to use the Masoretic canon instead of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint canon was the one that Christ Himself, St. Paul and the 12 Apostles used.

The Pharisees, the enemies of Christ, put together the Masoretic canon.

And the Pharisees changed some things in the Masoretic canon to be anti-Christian.

So as Protestants, you follow the Pharisee interpretation of the Old Testament over the Christian interpretation.

What did the Christians follow in the first 350-ish years of Christianity, if there was no New Testament canon?

They followed the oral and written teachings as taught by the Apostles and their successor bishops.

Us Catholics refer to the oral teachings as Sacred Tradition.

And we understand Tradition as being just as important as Scripture.

St. Paul talks about this himself:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:14

What did Christ leave us then?

He left us a Church. This is evident by reading the Bible.

Christ says it Himself:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

So Christ obviously left us the Church. And He made it clear that St. Peter was the leader.

Don’t believe me? Read the Book of Acts, which follows the 4 Gospels.

It is quite obvious that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles.

Even St. Paul defers to St. Peter on matters of the Faith (even though rebuking him in Galatians 2).

Read Acts 15 about the Council of Jerusalem. St. Peter makes the final decision because he leads the Church.

And what was St. Peter when he died? St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. He was the first Pope.

Read more here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

When was the New Testament written?

The first Pauline Epistles started getting written around 50 AD, and the rest followed before the end of the First Century.

Christ died, Resurrected, and Ascended into Heaven in 33 AD.

That means there were about 17 years of Christendom with NO New Testament whatsoever!

What did the Christians follow then? They followed the authority of the 12 Apostles and St. Paul.

The 12 Apostles and St. Paul also created Churches, consecrated Bishops and ordained Priests and Deacons.

Again, this is all written in the Book of Acts, which exists in EVERY PROTESTANT BIBLE!!!

Why did they wait so long to write New Testament documents? For the same reason Christ Himself never wrote New Testament documents: Most people were illiterate.

The focus of Christ, and His Apostles after He ascended, was conversion by oral preaching.

Preaching orally was the best way to teach people and convert since most people couldn’t read.

The printing press wasn’t around yet, either.

So again, as I mentioned in previous sections, oral Tradition was just as important as written Scripture.

In conclusion, for the first 1500 years of Christianity there was no Protestantism.

Protestantism Error # 2 – Sola Fide

Sola Fide is Latin for Faith Alone. Protestants use it to mean Salvation by Faith Alone.

Luther, Calvin, and other heresiarchs were uncomfortable with the Christian understanding of Justification.

The orthodox Catholic view of Justification is that one can lose salvation if one dies in Mortal Sin.

See more here and here regarding the differences between the heretical and orthodox understanding of Justification:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

What does the Bible say about Sola Fide?

So usually Protestants will cite Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, Romans 4, Romans 5:1, Philippians 3:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, and other passages.

Here is Romans 3:28, for example:

For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

They will say, “See, Paul says that we are justified by Faith and not works of the law!”

But is it that simple? No. Protestants saying this aren’t considering the context of the passages.

in these passages St. Paul is criticizing the “works of the law.”

What are the “works of the law?”

The “works of the law” are referring to the old Law of Moses of the Old Testament.

The “works of the law” include things like circumcision.

Christ fulfilled the Old Law, as He said here:

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17

So when St. Paul is saying that we are justified through Faith in Christ and not by the “works of the law” he is affirming the New Covenant has fulfilled the Old Covenant.

Therefore, the Mosiac Law of the Old Covenant is no longer binding on Christians.

If you still deny this, read Acts 15 again, where the Apostles decided that the Old Covenant is no longer binding.

They ended up condemning the Judaizers as heretics.

Read here, here, and here for more info:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2098.htm

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2107.htm

So why is Sola Fide wrong then?

The Bible itself condemns Sola Fide. The Bible says:

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? James 2:24

If you look at this passage and compare it to Romans 3:28 it would seem on the surface that there is a contradiction.

But there isn’t a contradiction. St. Paul was talking about the Mosaic Law, as we previously discussed.

St. James is referring to keeping God’s moral Commandments when he refers to “works.”

Read here to learn God’s Ten Commandments:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm

Christ reaffirmed these Commandments in His 2 Great Commandments:

Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

Christ also said this:

If you love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

So unlike the Mosaic Law, God still requires Christians to follow His moral Commandments.

So going back to James 2, St. James is telling us that we need to follow God’s Commandments to be saved.

It is not enough that we have Faith alone.

So does this mean that “Once Saved, Always Saved” isn’t true?

Yes, that is false. Christ Himself, again, repudiates this false teaching:

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

That is very clear. Christ is saying that not everyone who professes His Name will go to Heaven.

Only the people that do the “will of His Father” – the Will of God – will go to Heaven.

So if you have Faith in God, but do not do His Will, then you will not go to Heaven.

So that means I can lose Salvation?

Yes, you can. In order to have the Grace bestowed upon you to go to Heaven, you must be Baptized.

Christ says that:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5

And again, like I quoted in the previous section, Christ Himself says you can lose that Grace by not keeping the Commandments.

St. Paul mirrors what Christ says, by saying:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

St. Paul is referring to Mortal Sins here that will separate a person from Salvation.

For more on Mortal Sins read here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

The Catholic Church has taught for almost 2000 years that Baptism bestows Sanctifying Grace and that staying away from Mortal Sin keeps it.

This teaching is consistent with what the Bible says, as I have proven.

So can I get Sanctifying Grace back if I commit a Mortal Sin?

Yes! Thankfully, Christ gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins.

Christ says this to St. Peter and the other Apostles:

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:19

This means that the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops and priests, can bind and loose.

One way to do this is to forgive Sins. Read more here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Moreover, on God’s Merciful Forgiveness, St. John states:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. 1 John 1:9

Protestantism Error # 3 – Denying the Body and Blood of Christ in Communion

Another huge error of Protestantism is denying the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Again, Christ makes this clear:

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. Matthew 26:26-28

Also:

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. Luke 22:19-20

The best way to prove Catholicism true is to attack the false positions of Protestantism, which only came over a millennia after Christianity had already been established in the Roman Catholic Church in the West.

I do so in this article here:

https://christtheking.info/the-top-4-errors-of-protestantism/

But since many won't click this link, let me reply to my own comment here with the text from that article that proves Protestantism wrong.

Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!

Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!

Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!

You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

You're quite the character... Are you trying to get me to debate you in c/Conspiracies? If you want to debate me, then here are my terms:

1. What do you actually want to debate me on? You usually just crap on my religion and/or spew Bible verses out of context on me. What it is specifically that you think I am "wrong" on? I will take you on, one on one, and then we have no reason to speak of each other again.

2. And if we debate, there will be none of that pushing those same stupid 3 videos on me... I don't really have the time to watch those, and I honestly wouldn't if I did. If you want to debate me, you will have to put everything in your own words. It's okay to quote Scripture, but you must put everything in your own words.

Those are my terms.

I woke up to 9 of your comments/messages today, too, dude. You are an amazing hypocrite!

u/Neo1 isn't interested in answering questions... He only cares about spewing vomit...

I haven't read them, but apparently these 2 Jew-authored books talk about Henry VIII's relationship with the Jews:

https://search.worldcat.org/title/36489013

https://books.google.com/books?id=F_mUvs91FxEC

Not trying to gaslight at all here... Admittedly, the fact that all my posts across various boards get upvoted by around the same amount does seem weird, but it's organic (even though I doubt you or Neo believe me, it's true). All I can say is that I have a solid amount of fans here. Every time I post in communities.win I get a couple thousand views on my videos. So if I have posts that are upvoted like 30-40 times throughout a half a dozen boards, my guess is that I have about 30-40 or so really supportive fans on here, out of the couple thousand or so who watch my videos from communities.win. 30-40 out of 2k is a small fraction, but some people just REALLY like my content. Others, like you and Neo, don't like my content at all. But the numbers don't lie: I get thousands of views here, and dozens of those views are by REALLY SUPPORTIVE FANS. In general, I have more people that like my content than not in communities.win, which is why my posts are upvoted wayyy more than downvoted. And it's because of those people that I continue to post my content. And any of those reading this post: Again, I thank you for your support!

Not really annoyed... Just wanted to address this, since it has been brought to my attention. Again, as I have been saying about u/Neo1 and others... If you don't like what I post, then I am fine with that. My posts aren't everyone's cup of tea. That's why you have several options: ignore my posts, downvote my posts, and/or block me. I am fine with all of those. God bless!

Maybe people are sick of u/Neo1 kvetching in this community about me? That's all I can think of...