Intro
Hebrews 13:8–9: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents.”
Interesting that this guy, Patrick, chose Philippians 1:9 as the name of his ministry “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment.” because the verse is literally about growing in discernment and true knowledge and yet he’s blocking comments that try to provide correction. I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it really looks like this guy is intentionally trying to manipulate people. Usually when I find a video with as much error in it as the first one I saw of his, I usually go to the comments and find people have already made corrections. But not in this case. So, nonetheless I took the time to do my best to address every error and misunderstanding only to find that he filters his comments, so my comment wasn't showing up for other people. There's one manipulation tactic. Since he won't allow correction in his comment section posting a Blog will free me from wasting more time presenting facts that won’t survive his filter. He also explained things very dishonestly, intentionally leaving facts out to try to make his errors sound correct. I'll cover this and more here in this Blog
---
The Canon of Scripture
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/fDbdHfOeW_s
There was no single, universally accepted Jewish canon in the first century. Different Jewish groups—Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and later Rabbinic Jews—recognized different collections of sacred writings. For example:The Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Pentateuch). The Pharisees recognized the Prophets and Writings to varying degrees. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) used by Hellenistic Jews included the books Apostolic Christians now call the Deuterocanon protestant christians call Apocrypha. The Deuterocanon was widely used among Jews in the Diaspora (Greek-speaking Jews). The Dead Sea Scrolls even contained Tobit, Sirach, and Baruch. Some Jewish groups rejected them later (especially post-70 AD, after the fall of Jerusalem), but the early Church inherited them from the
Matthew 23:35 / Luke 11:51 – These verses are not about rejecting the Deuterocanon. Jesus is simply summarizing martyrdom from Genesis to 2 Chronicles in the Hebrew order of books. That does not mean He was laying down a fixed canon—He was making a rhetorical point. This is also one of the many reasons why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) doesn't work because theres no list in the Bible of what books belong in the Bible. That list is found in the document from the council of Rome of AD 382, which includes all 73 books.
“No quotes” argument – Not every Old Testament book is quoted in the New Testament either (e.g., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs). Yet their canonicity isn’t questioned. Meanwhile, the NT shows knowledge of the Deuterocanon (cf. Heb 11:35 alluding to 2 Macc 7; Wisdom 7 and John 1 on the Logos; Sirach 28 and James 3). Jude even quotes 1 Enoch, which is not in the canon at all. So quotation does not equal canonicity.
Church Fathers – Athanasius, Origen, Cyril, and Jerome all wrestled with the question, but none had the authority to fix the canon. Jerome, in fact, did change his mind, citing the Church’s judgment as final (cf. his later letters). Athanasius still used the Deuterocanon liturgically. The actual binding canon came from the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546)—long before Luther. Ironically, Luther was the one who separated them into an “Apocrypha” section, not the early Church.
“Not prophetic” claim – Wisdom 2 clearly foreshadows Christ’s Passion (“let us condemn Him to a shameful death…”). The Deuterocanon contains wisdom, prayer, prophecy, and history—just like other accepted OT books.
Historical “errors” (Judith, Tobit) – Ancient Jewish writings sometimes used “historical novels” to teach moral or theological truths. Jesus Himself used parables that were not literal history, yet were inspired. The presence of symbolic or stylized history does not make a book “unbiblical.”
In short: the Deuterocanon was part of the Bible used by the earliest Christians, proclaimed in councils over 1,000 years before Trent, and confirmed by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. And not to be rude, but it's hard to tell if it's on accident, or you're intentionally leave things out and wording things the way he does be manipulative. Like how he failed to mention that it was Luther who put the Deuterocanon in an appendix and said they were not on par, when they were in the Old Testament from AD 382 to AD 1517.
John 6 and the Eucharist
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EXd-4BwgUzk
“John 6 does not teach the Eucharist as Catholics teach it today.” The problem with that claim is that the earliest Christians, the disciples of the apostles themselves, all understood John 6 exactly as the catholic Church still does today.
Jesus says in John 6:51–55: “My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink… unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” When His listeners were shocked, He didn’t soften it into a metaphor. What He actually doubled down on was: “My flesh is true food.” Many walked away (John 6:66) precisely because they understood Him literally. This is a hard teaching (John 6:60).
In John 6:53–56 He repeats it four times, even switching to a stronger Greek verb trōgō = “gnaw/chew.”
And the early Church kept that same understanding:
Ignatius of Antioch (AD 107): “They abstain from the Eucharist… because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
Justin Martyr (AD 150): “This food is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180): “The Eucharist… is the flesh of our Savior Jesus.”
So if John 6 doesn’t teach the catholic Eucharist, then the apostles’ own disciples got it wrong — and somehow the YouTube algorithm fixed it 2,000 years later 😂
Also, he seems to be mixing up spiritual with metaphorical. In John 6, “spirit” doesn’t mean “not real.” It means the Holy Spirit gives life, it’s about divine power, not mere symbolism.
Early Church Fathers
https://www.philippians19.org/catholic-eucharist/
On his website, Patrick claims that the “Roman Catholic” teaching on the Eucharist is a later corruption, unsupported by Scripture and the first five centuries of Christian thought. There are several problems here.
“Roman Catholic” vs. the Universal Church
First, it is misleading to frame belief in the Real Presence as merely a “Roman Catholic” invention. The faith in the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ was not unique to the Roman Rite — it was universal. The Eastern Churches, which developed apart from the medieval papacy, also consistently believed and taught the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is why both Catholic and Orthodox traditions — which split in the 11th century — still hold the same Eucharistic faith today. If it were a later “Roman” invention, how could the Orthodox Church, which rejected medieval Roman dogmas, have preserved it as well?
The “don’t trust men’s opinions” contradiction
The site also says, “No person should ever just trust another person’s opinion.” That’s a noble principle. But ironically, this is exactly what the author asks readers to do — trust his personal interpretations over the consistent witness of the early Church. He positions himself as a gatekeeper, telling you which quotes count and which don’t, while dismissing Catholic explanations as “reading back medieval theology.” In other words, he tells you not to trust others’ opinions… but asks you to trust his.
Ignatius of Antioch and “context” games
The most glaring example is Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius — writing around A.D. 107 — explicitly said that heretics “abstain from the Eucharist… because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Smyrnaeans 7). That is as straightforward a statement of Real Presence as you will ever find. The site tries to reduce this to a debate about Docetism (the denial that Christ had a real body), as if Ignatius were only saying, “They deny the Incarnation, therefore they deny the Eucharist.” But that misses the obvious: if the Eucharist were merely symbolic, the Docetists could have joined the celebration with no problem. Instead, they abstained precisely because the Eucharist was proclaimed to be the very flesh of Christ — the same flesh they denied.
“Symbolic language” does not erase Real Presence
Yes, Ignatius sometimes uses symbolic imagery (calling himself “wheat of God,” or Christ’s blood “incorruptible love”). But symbolic language doesn’t cancel reality. Scripture itself often layers symbol and reality together: Jesus is both “the Lamb of God” (symbol) and a real, flesh-and-blood sacrifice. Likewise, early Christians saw the Eucharist as both symbol and reality — but never “mere symbol.” To claim otherwise is to force an either/or on texts that clearly speak in both/and.
The sacrifice of the Eucharist
Finally, the claim that Ignatius “never calls the Eucharist a sacrifice” ignores the wider patristic witness. By the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr was already describing the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy about a pure sacrifice offered among the nations (cf. First Apology 65–67). Irenaeus, writing only a few decades later, says the Church “offers to Him His own, consistently proclaiming the communion and union of the flesh and Spirit” (Against Heresies 4.18.5). So while Ignatius’ surviving letters don’t give us a treatise on transubstantiation, the broader early Church undeniably understood the Eucharist as sacrifice, not mere symbol.
In short: what this ministry presents as ‘honest context’ is actually cherry-picked misdirection. The earliest Christians — East and West — consistently confessed the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ, not a symbolic memorial. To call that a later ‘Roman Catholic error’ simply ignores history. And while Patrick covers other Fathers on his website, the same tactic repeats: cherry-picking, misdirection, and omission of critical context. His site reads less like genuine inquiry and more like a treatise of half-truths, crafted to lead readers away from what the Fathers themselves plainly taught.
Eucharistic Miracles
Patrick, of Philippians 1:9 Ministries, has a section on Eucharistic miracles in which he attempts to dismiss the reality of the Eucharist. While he raises several points, much of what he writes is misleading or outright incorrect. Let’s go through his claims and set the record straight.
1. “No peer-reviewed scientific articles verify Eucharistic miracles”
Patrick asserts that there are no peer-reviewed studies supporting Eucharistic miracles, implying this proves they are false. This is misleading for two reasons:
2. Historical context matters – Many miracles occurred centuries ago, long before scientific journals or modern laboratories existed. Publishing such reports publicly was often impossible due to societal hostility to Christianity.
3. Modern investigations do exist – While limited, some alleged miracles have been medically examined, including forensic analysis of tissue from the Buenos Aires miracle (1996). The lack of secular peer-reviewed publication does not automatically disprove the phenomenon.
4. “Natural explanations, like Serratia marcescens, account for all miracles”
Patrick repeatedly claims that red bacteria or mold could explain Eucharistic miracles. While it is true that Serratia marcescens produces a red pigment that can grow on bread, this is not a universal explanation:
Some miracles reportedly display human tissue or blood, as in the Buenos Aires host.
Critics often assume contamination without evidence, ignoring documented forensic observations.
Important note: Natural explanations must be tested, not assumed. Claiming bacteria “must” be the cause is not science—it is speculation.
4. “No replication, no independent verification”
Patrick treats Eucharistic miracles like modern experiments that must be reproduced. This is a category error:
Singular historical events cannot be replicated.
Some miracles have been examined medically, sometimes by forensic experts or scientists, though independent verification is limited by access restrictions.
Patrick incorrectly equates the impossibility of modern replication with fraud.
5. “Late documentation proves miracles are false”
Patrick points out that the Lanciano miracle (8th century) wasn’t documented until the 16th–17th centuries. While it is true that written accounts appeared later, he misrepresents the significance:
Oral tradition and devotional records were the norm in the Middle Ages.
Late documentation does not prove that events never occurred—it simply reflects historical realities.
6. Misrepresentation of Famous Cases
Patrick lists several miracles:
Lanciano, Italy (8th century) – Host allegedly transformed into flesh and blood. First written account centuries later.
Buenos Aires, Argentina (1996) – Host allegedly became cardiac tissue. Examined by forensic cardiologist Dr. Frederic Zugiba. No peer-reviewed article, but microscopic tissue analysis was performed.
Sokolka, Poland (2008) – Small host piece reportedly became heart tissue. Natural explanations like bacteria are suggested, but no testing conclusively rules them out or proves them.
Bolsena, Italy (13th century) – A priest reportedly saw a bleeding host. Patrick claims “no contemporary evidence,” implying fabrication, ignoring that historical records are often lost or delayed.
Patrick frequently ignores context: some events were medically examined, others are historical, and all are interpreted within the theological framework of the Church.
7. Misleading Claims About AB Blood Type
Patrick cites research claiming that relics and some miracle hosts share AB blood type, suggesting contamination from bacteria could explain this. This is half-true:
AB antigens can exist in some bacteria, potentially confounding results.
However, he treats this as proof that all AB results are meaningless, which is scientifically unjustified.
Actual research acknowledges limitations but does not definitively disprove the miracles.
8. Emotional and Theological Biases
Patrick argues that Catholic devotion or vivid descriptions are attempts to bypass rational thinking. While emotional appeal is part of religious experience, he misrepresents the nature of Catholic investigation:
Many miracles have been subject to forensic and medical scrutiny, not just theological interpretation.
Dismissing all miracles as “emotional storytelling” ignores actual investigative work.
Key Takeaways
1. Patrick’s historical arguments are often anachronistic and misleading.
2. Assuming natural causes like bacteria without evidence is not scientific.
3. Lack of peer-reviewed publication does not equal falsehood, especially for events centuries old.
4. Some miracles have undergone real forensic analysis, which Patrick often ignores or misrepresents.
5. Catholic belief in the Eucharist is not based solely on miracles, but miracles serve to strengthen faith.
The Bottom Line is that Patrick of Philippians 1:9 Ministries tries to dismiss the reality of the Eucharist by misrepresenting history, science, and Catholic tradition. A careful examination shows that:
His claims often assume fraud or natural explanations without testing.
He ignores historical context that makes modern scientific verification impossible.
Forensic and medical observations do exist, though independent verification is understandably limited.
The Eucharist remains central to Apostolic Christian teaching, supported by centuries of witness, theology, and, in some cases, scientific observation—not by emotion alone, as Patrick implies.
Conclusion
When you step back, the pattern emerges. Whether it’s the canon of Scripture, John 6, or the testimony of the early Church, Patrick presents himself as offering “context,” but it’s really selective editing — cherry-picking quotes, ignoring counter-evidence, and filtering correction. Add in the fact that he blocks comments that challenge him, and it looks less like a ministry of discernment and more like a controlled narrative.
The antidote to this isn’t my opinion versus his — it’s going to the sources themselves. Read the Scriptures in their fullness. Read the Fathers who sat at the feet of the Apostles’ disciples. Their writings are freely available at ChurchFathers.org. You’ll find a faith that is consistent, universal, and unmistakably Eucharistic — the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
Comments
Post a Comment