The Diving Board, Episode 12

And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the Pope's authority.

I mean, the Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.

As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself. And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church.

When I made that decision to become Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together, with the papacy and the Blessed Mother and tradition in the Eucharist.

Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were. Why should they make the same journey home that you made?

I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you, and maybe it would end up in the Catholic Church.

Cameron Bertuzzi’s Conversion Narrative and the Program’s Aim

Hello everyone, this is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 12 of The Diving Board, The Conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, part one. The Diving Board focuses on the testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism, thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do, because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their followers. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.

And, as we continue to show in each episode, those Roman Catholics who think they are getting deep in history are actually very, very shallow in it, embracing a late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the church Jesus Christ founded.

It most certainly is not. In this episode, we hear and examine the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi of recent notoriety because of his high-profile Capturing Christianity blog and podcast, which is dedicated to an intellectual defense of Christianity.

Cameron does not claim to be deep in history, and in fact he freely concedes his doctrinal and historical ignorance on many points, and is very eager to learn. His main objective with Capturing Christianity is apparently to foster dialogue on matters related to Christian apologetics.

That approach, coupled with a very, very charismatic background, in his words, and little devotion to or interest in Sola Scriptura, makes him very vulnerable to unreliable methods of discerning the truth of God.

Sola Scriptura was never a sticking point for me. I eventually came to reject Sola Scriptura, but it wasn't like a linchpin or something that really made me see the truth of Catholicism. So, I never used that as an argument for Catholicism.

Over the course of the last year, he has been very transparent about his conversion, including podcast episodes like Yes, I Nearly Became Catholic in August of 2022 and his Coming Out podcast a few months later on November 17th, called Three Very Important Updates, in which he announced that he had finally been convinced of the truth of the papacy.

Throughout this journey, he has appeared on many podcasts, Protestant and Catholic, either being challenged or reaffirmed in his exploration of the claims of Roman Catholicism and his decision to convert.

Today, we will interact with Cameron on several points, but to a large degree, we will interact with the people who convinced him to convert, because at least they claim to be deep in history. As we have repeatedly observed, however, they typically think they're deep in history, but they are still in the shallow end of the kiddie pool.

Cameron is with them right now, swimming with his floaties. Cameron has acknowledged several key factors in his conversion, but there are two that we'll focus on here, the Eucharist, focusing largely on John 6, and the papacy, focusing largely on Matthew 16 and the Eliakim typology.

Regarding the Eucharist, we'll focus on his debate with Roman Catholic podcaster and apologist Matt Fradd on the topic of John 6, and regarding the papacy, we'll focus on So and Sona's argument for the typology of Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16, 19.

Again, because Cameron does not claim to be deep in history, we'll be interacting only a little bit with Cameron, but a lot with those who led him to this decision. So, let's listen to Cameron Pertuzzi's conversation with Matt Fradd on what influenced him the most.

First, the Eucharist and John 6. We join the conversation at the point where Cameron is discussing the key factors in his conversion and who influenced him the most.

Cameron, who was the biggest influence for you to start an investigation on what the true faith is?

Probably you. Probably you, because I had never, never thought about the Catholic versus Protestant debate until you invited me to come on your show to talk about something completely unrelated, but then we did a separate thing on my channel where we looked at some of the objections, and I kind of shared my thoughts, and that was like, I think in that video, which now has over 100 ,000 views, maybe more at this point, but in that video, one of the things that we talked about was the Eucharist, and that was one of the first times that I had actually read John 6, and been like, that is pretty straightforward, actually.

You were the one, you were the sort of catalyst that got me thinking about these issues.

And here is Cameron again later in that same interview explaining some of his developing thoughts on the Eucharist.

There were two others that I spent some time working through as well. One of them was the Eucharist, which you and I had a debate about that.

Yeah, that's online. People can check that out.

I defended the metaphorical reading, which I don't think I hold that anymore, not because of some dogmatic claim from the Catholic Church. As I was reading it one day again, I was coming back at it with this metaphorical reading in mind, and I was like, is that really the right reading of this passage?

I don't know anymore. But that was one of the objections that I had, was that if you read John 6, John 6 is the part where he says, you've got to drink my blood, you've got to eat my flesh in order to be saved.

Very explicit, and Catholics will often point to that as like, here's evidence of the Eucharist. And so one of my objections was, A, it can be read more metaphorically, and B, it's not even a Last Supper narrative.

The Last Supper narratives happen in the other Gospels. This one's in John. And so it's not even a Last Supper narrative. What does this have to do with the Eucharist? Especially if it's metaphorical.

But then I came to realize that you could actually take a metaphorical reading of John 6, and then consistently hold that the Eucharist is the real body and blood. So you could hold transubstantiation and a metaphorical reading of John 6.

So that was another barrier that was removed for me, is that I could see how even if I took that view, it could be the case that the Catholic teaching on this is also correct.

For those not familiar with the Roman Catholic Eucharist, Roman Catholicism celebrates the Lord's Supper by blessing or consecrating the bread and the wine, and teaches that once they are consecrated, they are literally the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is called the Real Presence Doctrine, because Jesus is said to be really present under the forms of bread and wine. That is why Roman Catholics refer to Christ as their Eucharistic Lord. Cameron has just explained that he used to hold to the metaphorical view of John 6, but has since adopted the Roman Catholic position on the Real Presence.

Once the priest has consecrated the bread and wine by calling them the body and blood of Christ, they are then sacrificed on the altar, which is why the supper in Roman Catholicism is also called a sacrifice.

And further, any consecrated bread remaining after the supper is still believed to be Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, and is therefore worshipped. That is what Roman Catholics call Eucharistic Adoration, the worship of the consecrated bread.

And when they have consecrated the bread, they expose it for worship around the clock, 24 -7. That is called Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration. If you do a Google search for Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration in your neighborhood, you can freely go see Catholics worshipping a piece of bread that they believe to be Jesus.

So, Cameron's debate with Matt Fradd largely focused on these two issues, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the worship of the Eucharist. As Cameron states, Matt Fradd helped him get over that hurdle.

We'll come back to that in a minute. For now, let's listen in on what else convinced Cameron to become Roman Catholic, particularly on the matter of the papacy. Cameron mentions several arguments, but emphasizes the Suon Sona argument on the typology of Isaiah 22 -22 as a foreshadowing of the papacy.

And I know for you, perhaps the biggest thing was the papacy. You said you had, you can correct me, but you had some good Protestant friends say, listen, if you look into this seriously, you'll understand that Catholicism has to be false because the papacy, the claims of the Catholic Church regarding the Pope and infallibility are false, unhistorical, unbiblical.

So the way that it went down, I was like, okay, I called some Protestant friends of mine and I was like, hey, look, you know, these are my objections to Catholicism and I no longer have these objections.

And that's basically my objections. So what should I do now? Where should I go at this point?

So where did you go to first to look? Was it the kind of patristic sources? Was it the biblical evidence, historical evidence?

There's really three passages in the New Testament that are sort of relevant to the papacy in terms of like giving some positive boost to it, which is Matthew 16, John 21, and Luke 22. And if you look at those three, you'll see that, I mean, I think being charitably, you can say, okay, this does give a little bit of weight to the side of the papacy.

But what really surprised me, and this is why I spent so much of my time focusing on this one piece of data, is there is this argument called the typological, there's all sorts of names for it, but the typological Eliakim argument, you may call it something like that.

Okay, so there are the two main topics, the Eucharist and the papacy, and we'll have to break this into two episodes because there is a lot of material to cover on each topic. In both cases, the people influencing Cameron Bertuzzi sincerely believed they were deep in history and gave a Roman Catholic interpretation of the passages and claimed to have the early church on their side.

So we'll not only rebut them from the ancient sources, but we will also show from the scriptures that they have not understood the passages. Clearly, Bertuzzi desires to join his counselors in the deep end, but goodness, he's going to hurt himself diving into the shallow end like that.

So let's get up on the diving board at the deep end of the pool and dive into history and into scripture and examine two of the main arguments that convinced Bertuzzi to become Roman Catholic. Our first topic is the Eucharist.

When Bertuzzi started his conversation with Matt Fradd, he was still Protestant and maintained a figurative or metaphorical view of the passages of Scripture related to eating flesh and blood or calling the bread and the cup the flesh and blood of Christ.

And true to form, Matt Fradd leads with Cardinal Newman's famous line, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

See, I'm going to say some strong words, but I don't mean them to be personal or aggressive. But, you know, Cardinal John Henry Newman has this line to be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

And even though I know that sounds combative and maybe not to you, but to your listeners, you know, offensive. But I find that the Catholic Church is teaching on the Eucharist, right? That the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, taught explicitly in the New Testament.

And I'd argue that it couldn't be taught more explicitly. I don't think it's possible. And that it's been believed for basically 1500 years by the church until shortly before the Protestant Reformation.

And so for that reason, I think it's a really good reason to side with that view.

Matt Fradd suggests that Cameron's current position, that is the position at the time of the debate, is at odds with all of church history up to the Reformation because the early fathers were unanimous in their view of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It is a very bold position. And from that point forward, Fradd puts on an enthusiastic and frankly triumphalistic display of galactic ignorance of the liturgy and history of the early church. It's really something to behold.

And he makes claims that are so grotesquely false, misleading and inaccurate that to be charitable, we must assume that he truly is unaware of what he is saying. I want to show something clearly from the debate.

And my intent is not to embarrass either party, but it just simply has to be pointed out that Matt Fradd is incredibly naive or ignorant in his statements. And Cameron was foolish to accept him at their face value.

Listen carefully to the debate in which Cameron outlined his reasons for maintaining a metaphorical view of John 6. First, because eating flesh and blood would violate the Old Testament law. And second, eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood simply means to receive and believe what he is preaching.

First, Cameron.

And so as I started to look into this and started to look at what Protestants had to say about this, I came across a few different things that I think weigh in favor of a metaphorical reading of this passage.

So the first one was that in previous scripture in the Old Testament, Leviticus 17, it forbids against the drinking of blood, which Jesus would have known because he was a Jew. And so the question then is, was Jesus sinning when he told people that they had to drink blood?

And so I think that that actually weighs in favor of a metaphorical view.

Okay, here's another observation from Cameron later in that same debate.

Verse 58 references bread. And in context, we can see that the people, the disciples, were searching for Jesus because they had just been fed and they were hungry again. And so in context, Jesus is trying to teach them that instead of like physical bread, instead of fish or loaves, what you need is spiritual bread.

You need the spiritual bread of life that is going to give you eternal life. And so you need to believe and have divine wisdom and believe in Jesus.

Cameron's former position on this is so close to the truth, it is almost painful to hear him dither on it. We'll come back to the proper interpretation of John 6 momentarily. But Cameron was very close to the truth here, namely that the invitation to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood was a metaphorical invitation to believe his doctrines, the things he was saying.

Again, we'll come back to the scriptural argument for that position, but for now it's important to hear this so you can understand what Cameron held and what Matt Fradd vehemently rejected when he says no major early writer supported the metaphorical view.

Here is Fradd's response and notice that he doubles down emphatically that Cameron's view was absolutely unheard of in the early church.

So often I find that, okay, we all agree what the Bible says. We don't agree what the Bible means. And I think we can stick to the Bible if you want. But one powerful way of figuring out what it means is to see what the earliest Christians believed it to mean because, and I'll end with this, I'm rambling a little, sorry.

If we looked into church history and found that for the first 11 centuries, basically everybody believed that the Eucharist was symbolic, right? And maybe you'd find some unimportant, not very prominent Christian dissenting, but basically everybody believes this thing is metaphorical.

And then, you know, in the 1500s, all of a sudden the Catholic church starts saying, this is my body and blood, we would kind of rightly kind of balk at that and say, okay, like this is an interpretation that was unknown for the first, you know, 10, 11 centuries.

So I'm going to go with a more ancient interpretation because that seems to me, unless it contradicts the scriptures, to be the way to go. But what I've found is that when you look at what the early church has to say, it's Catholic.

There's no doubt about that. And so for that reason, I think Protestants should seriously consider the true presence, especially if the earliest Christians are unanimous on it, right? It's one thing if I can pick a father and you can pick a father and there was great dissension, right, and disagreement, that's one thing.

But when the earliest Christians all believe that this is bodily...

I really want the listeners to keep that in the forefront of their minds because we're going to come back to it repeatedly. Matt Fradd says that Cameron's metaphorical view of John 6 and the institution narratives was unknown in the early church and that the early fathers were unanimous in their affirmation of the Roman Catholic real presence position.

The earliest Christians are unanimous on it. The first prominent Christian to take your position, Cameron, is Baron Garius of Tours in the 11th century. The earliest Christians are unanimous on it.

But is that true? What did the early church think of John 6 and the institution narratives? Let's take a look first at John 6. This is Clement of Alexandria, 198 AD, from the book The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6.

He goes on and on in this chapter about the figurative language, but this will give you a taste of his thoughts on it. Elsewhere, the Lord in the gospel, according to John, brought this out by symbols when he said, eat my flesh and drink my blood, describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise by means of which the church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both, of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

For in reality, the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. Again, 198 AD, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6. And here is Clement again in the Stromata, Book 1.

Here Clement is commenting on John 6 .27, which says, labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures to everlasting life. His comment is, and nutriment is received by both bread and by words, and truly blessed are the peacemakers who, instructing those who are at war in their life and errors here, lead them back to the peace which is in the word, and nourish for the life which is according to God, by the distribution of the bread, those that hunger after righteousness.

Now, Tertullian of Carthage, 210 AD, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37. Constituting therefore his word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, he likewise called his flesh by the same appellation, because, too, the word had become flesh.

We ought therefore to desire him in order that we may have life, and to devour him with the ear, and to ruminate on him with the understanding, and to digest him by faith. That's all very figurative language about what it means to eat the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ.

Here's Origen and his commentary on the Gospel of John. This is Book 10, from 238 AD. I am led to this observation by John's saying, and the bread which I give is my flesh for the life of the world. Again, we eat the flesh of the lamb with bitter herbs and unleavened bread when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation and is not to be repented of.

Or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found in those of truth and are nourished by them. But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into well-cooked food, not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin, as those do who have itching ears and turn away their ears from the truth.

Here's Novation, a Roman presbyter from 250 AD, on Jewish Meats, chapter 5. Commenting on John 6, he says,. But labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to life internal, which the Son of Man will give you.

For him hath the Father sealed. By righteousness, I say, and by continency, and by the rest of the virtues God has worshipped. For Zacharias also tells us, saying, If ye eat or drink, is it not ye that eat or drink?

Declaring thereby that meat and drink attain not unto God, but unto man. For neither is God fleshly, so as to be pleased with flesh, nor is he careful for those pleasures, so as to rejoice in our food.

God rejoices in our faith alone, in our innocency alone, in our truth alone, in our virtues alone. And these dwell not in our belly, but in our soul. And these are acquired for us by divine awe and heavenly fear, and not by earthly food.

Again, that's Novation on Jewish Meats, chapter 5, from 250 AD. Now, he became schismatic in 251 and was then excommunicated, but his views on John 6 were not the cause of the schism or the excommunication.

Here's Augustine in 397 AD, from Christian Doctrine, book 3, chapter 16. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, says Christ, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice.

It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Again, Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, quoting John 6. But he instructed them, and saith unto them, It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Understand spiritually what I have said. Ye are not to eat this body which ye see, nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery.

Spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. And again, Augustine, Tractate 26, paragraph 1 on the Gospel of John.

For to believe in him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats. He is sated invisibly, because invisibly he is born again. So, here you have Clement in 198 AD, Tertullian in 210, Origen in 238, Novatian in 250, and Augustine in 397 AD.

Clearly speaking of a metaphorical, non-literal interpretation of John 6. It is true, you could say, that Tertullian fell into Montanism, and Origen was a heretic, and Novatian was a schismatic. And yet, on the matter of John 6, they were all considered to be perfectly orthodox.

The metaphorical view of John 6 was not the error that led later writers to reject Tertullian, Origen, and Novatian. Their views were similar to that of Clement and Augustine on the same passages. And they were hardly heretics by Rome's standards.

Matt Fradd says the metaphorical interpretation was unknown for 1500 years, and the early church fathers were unanimous on this.

The earliest Christians are unanimous on it.

No, not by a long shot. Now, there are some citations from the early church that he could use, and indeed he does cite them a little bit later, and will address them at that time. But his claim that the early church unanimously accepted the Roman Catholic view is preposterous to the point of comedy.

Matt Fradd is either ignorant, or is hoping Cameron Bertuzzi is not curious enough to venture out of the shallow end of the pool. But enough of John 6. Let's move on to the institution narratives. Were the early writers unanimous in their affirmation that take, eat, this is my body, and take, drink, this is my blood, were to be understood literally?

Let's take a look. Irenaeus of Lyons, 190 AD, fragment 37. He refers to the consecrated elements, the bread, the body of Christ, and the cup, the blood of Christ, as these antitypes, a Greek word meaning symbols.

Tertullian of Carthage, 208 AD, against Marcian, book 4, chapter 40. In his argument against the Gnostics, Tertullian explained the supper. Then, having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, he made it his own body by saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

Hippolytus of Rome, 215 AD. This comes to us from the Didiscalia. The Greek original of Hippolytus' instructions on the thank offerings and the supper is no longer extant, but the Verona Latin fragments helpfully preserve both the Latin translation and the Latin transliteration of the Greek.

At the thank offering, prior to the blessing, the bread is called an example, or exemplum, of the body of Christ, or in Greek, antitupum. The wine is called an antitype, or antitupum, of the blood of Christ, or in Greek, similitudinem.

Yet, even after the consecration, the communicant is instructed to receive the image, antitupum, of the blood of Christ. Origen of Alexandria, 248 AD, commentary on Matthew. In his commentary on Matthew, Origen insisted, It is not the material of the bread, but the word which is said over it, which is of advantage to him who eats it, not unworthily of the Lord.

And these things, indeed, are said of the typical and symbolic body. Cyprian of Carthage, 256 AD, in his letter to Magnus, paragraph 6. For when the Lord calls bread, which is combined by the union of many grains, his body, he indicates our people whom he bore as being united.

And when he calls the wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and collected together, his blood, he signifies our flock linked together by the mingling of a united multitude. Adamantius, 300 AD, in Dialogue, Book 5, Chapter 6.

Arguing against the Gnostic error, Adamantius asked, If, as they say, he was fleshless and bloodless, of what flesh or of what blood was it that he gave the images in the bread and the cup, when he commanded the disciples to make the memorial of him by means of these?

Eusebius of Caesarea, 325 AD, from History of the Church, Book 10, Chapter 3. Explaining the origin of the supper, Eusebius recorded, Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the mysterious symbols of the Savior's passion were dispensed.

Eusebius again, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book 1, Chapter 10. We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of his body and saving blood. Eusebius again, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book 8, Chapter 1.

The wine was indeed the symbol of his blood. He gave himself the symbols of his divine dispensation to the disciples, when he made them take the likeness of his own body, bread to use as the symbol of his body.

Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 AD, in his instruction to the catechumens, Cyril insisted that they understand the consecrated bread and wine figuratively. Wherefore, with full assurance, let us partake of the body and blood of Christ, for in the figure of bread is given to you his body, and in the figure of wine his blood.

Catechetical Lecture 22, Paragraph 3. In the same lecture, trust not the judgment to your bodily palate, no, but to faith unfaltering. For they who taste are bidden to taste not the bread and wine, but the antitypical body and blood of Christ.

That is, the symbolic body and blood of Christ. The Eucharistic Anaphora of Serapion of Thammuz, 353 AD. This bread is the likeness of the holy body, the cup, the likeness of the blood. For the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his own disciples, Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood.

Gregory of Nazianzen, in his preparation for the supper, Gregory refers to the unconsecrated elements using the language of symbolism, calling them the antitype of the great mysteries. That's Oration 2, Paragraph 95.

But also uses figurative language as the participants are about to eat the consecrated bread and wine, saying, Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical, though it is plainer than the old one.

That's Oration 45, Paragraph 23. Apostolic Constitutions from 380 AD. In the communion prayer, the celebrant acknowledges that the bread and cup are a representation of the body and blood of Christ. Now quoting, We also, our Father, thank thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us and for his precious body, whereof we celebrate this representation as himself appointed us to show forth his death.

Macarius the Egyptian, 390 AD, Homily 27. The consecrated bread and wine are the symbol of his flesh and blood, Macarius wrote, and those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord.

And finally, here's Augustine of Hippo in Sermon 272 from 408 AD. What you see on God's altar you've already observed during the night that has now ended, but you've heard nothing about just what it might be or what it might mean or what great thing it might be said to symbolize.

So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful. You are the body of Christ, member for member. That's 1 Corinthians 12, 27. If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table.

It is your own mystery that you are receiving. You are saying amen to what you are. Your response is a personal signature affirming your faith. But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here.

Listen instead to what Paul says about this sacrament. The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body. 1 Corinthians 10, 17. Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, faithfulness, love. One bread, he says.

What is this one bread? Is it not the one body formed of many? This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. Again, we remind the listener of Frad's ostentatious claim that the early church was unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that no prominent church father spoke of the symbolic metaphorical view of John 6 or the institution narratives until the 11th century.

The first prominent Christian to take your position, Cameron, is Baron Garius of Tours in the 11th century. The earliest Christians are unanimous on it.

But what we have just read shows otherwise. Irenaeus and Clement in the 2nd century. Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, and Novatian in the 3rd century. Adamantius, Eusebius, Searle, Serapion, Gregory, and Augustine in the 4th and 5th.

All these adopted language and interpretations that explicitly take a metaphorical view of John 6 and a symbolic allegorical view of the institution narratives. In fact, I would say that none of the writers of the first three centuries held to the literal view that Matt Frad espoused.

He cites a couple in support of the literal view like Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A .D. and Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 A .D. and there are several others I will gladly add to his list. But it can be shown plainly from their own words that they did not take the literal view as I will demonstrate.

We'll come back to that in a moment. But before we look at Matt Frad's views on John 6, I want to revisit something Matt Frad said and it has to do with idolatry. His point was that if Catholics are wrong about the real presence, then Catholics have been committing idolatry by worshipping the Eucharist for 1500 years before the Reformation.

The debate was recorded on Sunday, June 7, 2020, and Matt Frad tells Cameron Bertuzzi that he went to Mass that morning. Listen closely and you'll hear him say that he worshipped the Eucharist during the service.

He says Roman Catholics have been worshipping the Eucharist for 1500 years and then Protestants showed up and started complaining about it.

Like as a Catholic, I received the Eucharist today and I worshipped the Eucharist, right? I gave it adoration and I received it into me. Two points. If you're right, then for the vast majority of Christian history, all Christians or the vast majority of Christians have been wrong about it.

And it was only like 500 years that we figured out he meant it symbolically. For 1500 years, you have Christians basically committing idolatry while worshipping bread and wine. This is a serious sin.

The ignorance on display here is absolutely stunning. During the Roman Catholic Mass, the Eucharist is elevated so that the people can worship the consecrated bread on their knees. Matt Frad went to church that day and knelt down and worshipped the bread as the priest elevated the host.

And he believes Roman Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years. So far removed from the Apostles is Matt Frad's real presence doctrine that it did not even occur to anyone to kneel before the consecrated bread until late in the 11th century.