According to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence, what makes for a valid Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on the Protestants, again. In my case, an ordained priest in the apostolic succession must sanctify the bread and wine. Though I’m splashing around in the Tiber right now, and I’ve always been more Catholic in my sacrament sacramentology than most Protestants, so I’m not really representative.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Otherwise, what’s the difference between Christ’s presence here and in any meal that we pray over?
Click to expand...
The difference is it was instituted by Christ and commanded to be observed continually until he returns. So, the meal is obviously different from just eating bread and wine in any other context.
 
Last edited:
Then again, we best be sure we get the requirements down — and, before that, what the Eucharist even is, in the first place.

Already in this thread, we have three very different Protestant versions of what occurs.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
But what is the promise of the sacrament, and how do we know, and who decides? You and @ltwin would probably have substantial disagreement.
Click to expand...
I think we would disagree less than you think. We would probably both agree by virtue of 1 Corinthians 11 that participation in the Eucharist is the proclamation of Christ’s death until he comes, and being the recipient of the new covenant in Christ’s body and blood to be forgiven of sin. We don’t need to “decide” that is what the Holy Spirit handed down to us in scripture.
 
Last edited:
I could also see why it would be important to ask this same question from the other perspective.

If the Eucharist is NOT the Real Presence – especially something so exotic like Transubstantiation – then we better have a way to know this for sure, or else Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians are committing the most bizarre kind of idolatry (even if out of ignorance).

And if that’s the case, most Christians have been very, VERY wrong throughout Christian history.

So how do we know? How do we discern?
 
Last edited:
But what is the promise of the sacrament, and how do we know, and who decides? You and @ltwin would probably have substantial disagreement.
 
As a Lutheran, here is what our Confessions state. The translation is the Kolb-Wengert, and I will be quoting from the translation of the German text. Emphasis mine.
  1. From the Augsburg Confession, Article V: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments.” NOTE: Pastors (the common title for those who hold the office of preaching) have the duty of giving the Gospel and the Sacraments.
  2. From the Augsburg Confession, Article X: “Concerning the Lord’s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching.”
  3. From the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV: “Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper call.” This means that unless one is called to do so (i.e., by ordination), no one may administer the Sacrament. It is a common consideration that in emergencies, Baptism may be administered by a Christian, as a function of his or her common priesthood as a believer, however, there is no such allowance that is made for the Eucharist.
So, in summary, according to the doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church, the Lord’s Supper is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is to be consecrated with bread and wine, and that no one but an ordained pastor may administer the Sacrament.
 
@MiserereMei

Thank you.

This is very clear.

My question following is: How do we know if/when someone is properly ordained?

Or who has the authority to ordain?
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
But what is the promise of the sacrament, and how do we know, and who decides? You and @ltwin would probably have substantial disagreement.
Click to expand...
I think we would disagree less than you think. We would probably both agree by virtue of 1 Corinthians 11 that participation in the Eucharist is the proclamation of Christ’s death until he comes, and being the recipient of the new covenant in Christ’s body and blood to be forgiven of sin. We don’t need to “decide†that is what the Holy Spirit handed down to us in scripture.
 
Unfortunately I’m turning this more into more a debate then I wanted, as I said at the beginning, so I won’t prolong it.

But let me just say that, of course, every Christian tradition would maintain that its interpretation of the Eucharist in Scripture is “what the Holy Spirit handed down to us in scripture.”

Not only for people of your persuasion, but of Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics who have the most literal understanding of the Eucharist as well.
 
Last edited:
I can’t speak for anybody here, but yes, some would say that.

Though I’d suspect that few Protestants who are not memorialists would say it.
 
Last edited:
We know that by the time of Ignatius of Antioch in the early AD 100s, only the bishop or “one he appoints” presided at the Eucharist. What we know of the presbyters – as original advisors to the bishop – means that they were probably the ones referred to here. So bishops and priests presided at the Eucharist this early on.

This doesn’t meant there was a change from earlier. It’s just one of the earliest documents that specifically references who does what at the Eucharist.

Eh I don’t know why I said this in reply to your post. I was going somewhere with it, but I forgot… hmm…
 
Last edited:
And as a Protestant, I have no issue with this. Once again though, this was a pragmatic declaration, not a doctrinal one. If you evaluate the context in which Ignatius is writing he is in the same letters and in the same context writing against the docetics and urging them to only participate in mass and Eucharist held by the bishop assuming that the bishops (who were personally known to him) are maintaining the doctrinal purity of their flock. This isn’t a matter of the means by which Christ fulfills his Eucharistic promises, but a matter of telling the Church to receive the gospel from someone seen to be a trusted source.
 
Last edited:
Well no, the sacramental authority of the local church flowed from the bishop. This is clear over and over again in Ignatius, when he insists on keeping union with the bishops and the presbyters gathered around him. This is why schism of any kind is of eternal consequence to him. It’s not merely a practical solution.

It reflects the very understanding of the Church as a visible society gathered around the bishop, who was in line from the Apostles themselves.

And thankfully, we don’t only have Ignatius. As time goes on, we see the theological understanding become clearer. We can’t read in isolation.

Even before Ignatius, as early as Clement’s letter, you see the bishop mimicking the role of “high priest” of the Old Covenant.
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
My question following is: How do we know if/when someone is properly ordained?

Or who has the authority to ordain?
Click to expand...
Ordination is a function of the Church.

It is always done with the laying on of hands by a group of pastors (in Lutheran Churches without bishops) or by a bishop (in the Lutheran Churches that either retained or restored bishops). I am sorry, my collection of service books does not contain an altar book, so I do not have access to an ordination service to give you a specific quote.

In the LCMS, the pastor of the congregation is often thought of as the bishop of his congregation.

The ELCA, as well as the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches which never lost bishops, require a bishop with an accepted line of apostolic succession (In the ELCA, this is due to the communion agreement with the Episcopal Church, which provides the bishops until all of the bishops of the ELCA are within the same succession).

The Lutheran Confessions prefer the ELCA model. Quoting again from the Kolb-Wengert translation, this time from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV: “Article fourteen, in which we say that no one should be allowed to administer the Word and the sacraments unless they are duly called, they accept with the proviso that we use canonical ordination. Concerning this subject, we have frequently testified in the assembly that it is our greatest desire to retain the order of the church and the various ranks in the church—even though they were established by human authority.”

Sorry for the delay, I was trying to find that quote.
 
Ok, so apostolic succession is required for a valid Eucharist for most Lutherans?
 
Since we are all priests, all Christians can preach, baptize and administer Holy Communion. That doesn’t mean that all Christians should, but it does mean they can when the necessity arises.
 
That we are all priests doesn’t mean we don’t minister in our own unique ways. Even if we dismiss the sacramental priesthood per the Catholic (& Orthodox) teaching, one could still argue that some Christians – as priests – are called to teach, some are called to pastor, some are called to administer the sacraments, etc.

The Catholic view is simply that because of what the Eucharist is, the ministry set aside for this in particular is of a unique kind.

For indeed, if the Eucharist is what Catholics say it is, it would be awkward for Christ to allow any Christian whatsoever going around consecrating bread and wine whenever he wanted.
 
Last edited:
Is that because you believe you’re forbidden or because you just wouldn’t want to?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top