A comprehensive documentary titled "History PROVES Catholicism" argues that historical evidence validates the tenets of the Catholic Church over those of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The nearly nine-hour film systematically explores various theological and historical topics to build its case for the continuity and authority of the Catholic faith from the first century to the present day.


The documentary is a collaborative effort between the YouTube channels @MilitantThomist and @UnionistInitiative. It is structured into several key sections, each addressing a specific area of theological debate.
The film begins by instructing viewers on how to interpret the writings of the early Church Fathers, asserting that their works support Catholic doctrines. It then delves into the development of dogma and the historical basis for the papacy, examining the Meletian Schism and the question of a heretical pope. The documentary also defends the actions of Pope Zosimus and argues against scriptural interpretations that challenge papal authority.
A significant portion of the documentary is dedicated to the "Filioque" clause, a major point of contention between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The filmmakers present arguments from the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. John of Damascus to support the Catholic position. They also critique what they term as "innovations" within Eastern Orthodoxy.
Further sections of the film defend the Catholic understanding of the Trinity and Christology, addressing and refuting opposing views. The documentary also mounts a critique of Protestantism, claiming that it has "destroyed the New Testament" and misrepresented Marian doctrines. It also presents historical evidence for the belief in Purgatory dating back to the 5th century and defends the Catholic Mass.
Later in the film, topics such as double predestination, Molinism, and a historical perspective on Vatican II are discussed. The documentary concludes with a discussion on the theological figure Origen. The creators note that while the film aims to bring all people into the Body of Christ, the opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the official position of the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

The nearly over nine-hour film

---

Is there a youtube short coming out anytime soon?

I think Wagner is probably pretty smart, but 9 hours?

I believe it proves it over Protestantism. That's easy.

Over Eastern Orthodoxy? Come on Son…

Is it Vatican II that this documentary proves?

The Catholic Church of the 1400s?

Maybe it's after future Vatican III someday that this documentary "proves".

Proving out over Orthodoxy is cutting the RCC own legs out from under it.

It doesn't even validate Christianity

This is just lore no better than lord of the rings. You guys even have multiple different ways and places some of your martyrs died.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on both of your first two statements. I'm sure this has already been hashed out and argued to death on here, though.

Quote:

---

Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

---

1. They were trained and taught by the apostles, and then their successors.
2. They hand copied the scriptures over and over again in spite of Roman persecution for doing so. We only have the bible today because of them.
3. They willingly gave up their lives for Jesus in the Coliseum.
4. They all taught the same things whether in Asia Minor, Rome, or Africa. If you take the time to read them, you will soon see this is very true.

I think those 4 things carry a lot of weight.

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

This is patently false.

1. 11th century isn't "modern". And that's only the term. The idea that the bread looks and tastes like bread, while no longer being bread, goes back to the 200s or 300s.


2. The EO use the term in their synod of Jerusalem, which was signed off on by all patriarchs. In the 1700s, they sent a letter to a sect of Anglicans that would require them to agree with the term if unity were to be established. Now you can say of their use of the word is a bit different than that of the West or that it's less descriptive in the east, but the western belief has never been condemned or formally disagreed with by the East.

Don't let you anti-papalism lead you into unforced errors.

For sure there were no bibles with only 66 books in them before the Reformation. Since 382 AD, at the Council of Rome, all bibles had the full 73 books in them.

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

Is this the scholar William Lane Craig read and arrived at a similarly false conclusion? The early church most certainly believes the the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Jesus. Even those fathers cited that seem to use symbolic language are not using it in a disagreement against the true presence belief. Anyone claiming there was disagreement on this topic is flat out wrong. And that's saying something, seeing as there were major disagreements on the nature of the trinity, Jesus's divinity, etc.

To the second bolded, we might as well give up on trying to unify around anything. Why are we so certain that scripture is inspired by God? Why should we believe sola scriptura? Why should we reject universalism? Without some sort of constant, everything is up for grabs. If you want proofs for this assertation, I'll give them. Just don't want to write a novel if there is no interest in reading it.

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

A previous schola director of ours has a big soft spot for the eastern liturgical traditions, despite being a Latin (Pentecostal convert even). And yes, he struggles with this thomistic explanation yet fully accepts Christ's actual, real Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I love Aquinas, but he doesn't speak to every Catholic.

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

A previous schola director of ours has a big soft spot for the eastern liturgical traditions, despite being a Latin (Pentecostal convert even). And yes, he struggles with this thomistic explanation yet fully accepts Christ's actual, real Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I love Aquinas, but he doesn't speak to every Catholic.

---

I myself prefer the divine mystery explanation; I like the Angelic Doctor but think that he went a little overboard in trying to explain the inexplicable, but he was a genius trying to serve his church.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

A previous schola director of ours has a big soft spot for the eastern liturgical traditions, despite being a Latin (Pentecostal convert even). And yes, he struggles with this thomistic explanation yet fully accepts Christ's actual, real Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I love Aquinas, but he doesn't speak to every Catholic.

---

I myself prefer the divine mystery explanation; I like the Angelic Doctor but think that he went a little overboard in trying to explain the inexplicable, but he was a genius trying to serve his church.

---

Perhaps that is an explanation better suited for our times. The definitions and concepts of Thomas's adaptation of Aristotelian metaphysics brings much confusion these days as we have different connotations for the terminology associated with it.

Furthermore, it seems our Eastern brethren are more comfortable with mystery whereas us Latins tend to want to explain everything. We've recovered a bit of this comfort with mystery with the uniate Churches. However, I'm not sure we've come to a right balance. Case in point: the difference in language Catholics (Latins) use versus that which the Orthodox use in areas of agreement.

Another interesting point about Catholics and Orthodox... the names give us a clue as to what tends to be more important in the respective communions between unity and right teaching. 1a vs 1b. Various Orthodox Churches are in schism with each other, typically over teaching. Rome fails to reign in the German bishops despite the obvious heterodoxy emmanating from Der Synodale Weg and their silliness before.

Perhaps it's something for a separate thread, but I'm genuinely curious about the presence of apparitions of Our Lady and Eucharistic miracles and other such manifestations within the broader Orthodox Churches.

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

A previous schola director of ours has a big soft spot for the eastern liturgical traditions, despite being a Latin (Pentecostal convert even). And yes, he struggles with this thomistic explanation yet fully accepts Christ's actual, real Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I love Aquinas, but he doesn't speak to every Catholic.

---

I myself prefer the divine mystery explanation; I like the Angelic Doctor but think that he went a little overboard in trying to explain the inexplicable, but he was a genius trying to serve his church.

---

Perhaps that is an explanation better suited for our times. The definitions and concepts of Thomas's adaptation of Aristotelian metaphysics brings much confusion these days as we have different connotations for the terminology associated with it.

Furthermore, it seems our Eastern brethren are more comfortable with mystery whereas us Latins tend to want to explain everything. We've recovered a bit of this comfort with mystery with the uniate Churches. However, I'm not sure we've come to a right balance. Case in point: the difference in language Catholics (Latins) use versus that which the Orthodox use in areas of agreement.

Another interesting point about Catholics and Orthodox... the names give us a clue as to what tends to be more important in the respective communions between unity and right teaching. 1a vs 1b. Various Orthodox Churches are in schism with each other, typically over teaching. Rome fails to reign in the German bishops despite the obvious heterodoxy emmanating from Der Synodale Weg and their silliness before.

Perhaps it's something for a separate thread, but I'm genuinely curious about the presence of apparitions of Our Lady and Eucharistic miracles and other such manifestations within the broader Orthodox Churches.

---

Very very well stated, and I agree 100%. I wish these things were discussed more as viewpoints and thought experiments behind relaying the mechanics of a miracle, rather than a "law"

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

Your next post you say you are fond of the mysterious explanation for the real presence over Thomas, and I think the bolded is why. I'm going to be annoyingly specific when I say that you are misusing the word "how". Thomas' treatise of transubstantiation is a detailed account of what happens. The only reference he makes to "how" it happens can be summarized as "miraculous". To say that Thomas removed the mystery of God's power from the consecration is to misunderstand Thomas and unintentionally let the EO or "real presence" protestants claim homefield advantage in this matter. There is a reason their own patriarchs accepted the term, and it's because the "how" is left to God alone.

Thomas accepted mystery when it comes to what God has not revealed, as is fitting of a saint. I'd encourage Catholics not to tarnish his work because of modern misunderstandings generated by opponents.

ETA: read what St Ambrose in the 300s has to say about God changing the "nature" of the elements. Just because you can describe what happened in a miracle does not mean you can explain how the miracle was wrought

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If one reads the early Church fathers, most of whom were eaten alive by lions in the coliseum (or who were crucified), you will find that they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist is the spiritual and physical body and blood of Christ, and the necessary authority of a bishop for the church. So not only were they martyrs for Christ, they also were Catholics who handed down both written and oral teachings of The Church...

---

I don't think that's correct. One has to be careful not to cherry pick the early church fathers to find support for one's current beliefs. For example, I just read a scholar who summarized the beliefs of the "early church fathers" on the Eucharist as being roughly similar to the EO, i.e., not the physical body and blood but "a mystery".

And who says that the early church fathers were infallible anyway? They were just men with opinions. Why should their opinions be a guide to anything? Why should the opinion of someone who lived 300 years after Christ have any greater weight than the opinion of someone today?

Finally, how early do the early church fathers have to be to be considered "early"?

---

This is a misunderstanding of EO and much of the early church.

The EO absolutely believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is the consistent view of the early church

The word Mystery is interchangeable with Sacrament.

From OrthodoxWiki: " The term sacrament is derived from the Latin sacramentum, meaning "a consecrated thing or act," i.e., "something holy," "to consecrate;" which itself was a Church Latin translation of the Greek mysterion, meaning "mystery."

They don't hold to the Roman Catholic formulation of Transubstantiation, but that's really just a modern invention of Rome.

---

I don't understand why Protestants are so confused by the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

"The Catholic Church says you have to accept Transubstantiation!111!1!1!1!"

No it doesn't, it says you have to accept what Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian metaphysics to explain; how bread and wine become body and blood while looking like bread wine.

It's an explanation. That's it

---

A previous schola director of ours has a big soft spot for the eastern liturgical traditions, despite being a Latin (Pentecostal convert even). And yes, he struggles with this thomistic explanation yet fully accepts Christ's actual, real Divine presence in the Eucharist.

I love Aquinas, but he doesn't speak to every Catholic.

---

I myself prefer the divine mystery explanation; I like the Angelic Doctor but think that he went a little overboard in trying to explain the inexplicable, but he was a genius trying to serve his church.

---

Perhaps that is an explanation better suited for our times. The definitions and concepts of Thomas's adaptation of Aristotelian metaphysics brings much confusion these days as we have different connotations for the terminology associated with it.

Furthermore, it seems our Eastern brethren are more comfortable with mystery whereas us Latins tend to want to explain everything. We've recovered a bit of this comfort with mystery with the uniate Churches. However, I'm not sure we've come to a right balance. Case in point: the difference in language Catholics (Latins) use versus that which the Orthodox use in areas of agreement.

Another interesting point about Catholics and Orthodox... the names give us a clue as to what tends to be more important in the respective communions between unity and right teaching. 1a vs 1b. Various Orthodox Churches are in schism with each other, typically over teaching. Rome fails to reign in the German bishops despite the obvious heterodoxy emmanating from Der Synodale Weg and their silliness before.

Perhaps it's something for a separate thread, but I'm genuinely curious about the presence of apparitions of Our Lady and Eucharistic miracles and other such manifestations within the broader Orthodox Churches.

---

I generally agree on much of what you post, including this one... but the bolded is plain wrong. Pope Francis, of all popes, gave multiple warnings that they are on the wrong path. Excommunication of the German bishops is 100% on the table as soon as they formally break from orthodox Catholic teaching. Whatever amount of patience the pontiff(s) show prior to formal and obstinate teaching of heresy is a prudential matter. Removing bishops or excommunicating prelates prior to a formal and obstinate break from orthodoxy would be wrong on so many levels, and would go against the example many former popes have given.

ETA: Take the FSSPX. Lefebvre was warned a number of times between 1970 and 1988 not to do what he was doing. 18 years of patience, with many more years available to him.... until he broke from explicit church teaching. And then his predecessors sought union again recently. Not excommunicating the german bishops is more a matter of mercy and patience than it is "failing to reign them in"