(biblical) evidence of the need for a priest to consecrate bread/wine

[Non_Serviam]

Hi all,

Still doing my consideration of the Catholic faith. What I’m looking for now is evidence (preferably biblical, but other sources including the ECF’s will be considered), that for the Real Presence to occur, a priest needs to speak the words of consecration over bread and wine.

To be clear, I’m not looking for evidence of the Real Presence in the bread and wine (or replacing the bread and wine if you prefer), but rather that a priest is required for this to occur.

Is there a Scripture that would invalidate the concept that an assembly of believers sharing bread and wine in an agape feast would be consuming the Real Presence à la Matthew 18:20?

Thanks for any assistance that might be provided.

 

[NotWorthy]

The offering of bread and wine is the Perpetual Sacrifice (mentioned in Malachi, chapter 3) offered up during each Mass. A priest is needed to offer up the sacrifices in the Mosaic Covenant, which the New Covenant fulfilled.

If you do a study of the words Jesus used “Do this as a memorial for me” (paraphrasing) will reveal that the words “poien” (offer this up) and “anamnesis” (make present) were used almost exclusively as part of the Jewish Liturgy and in sacrificial terms.

Also, all Sacrifices were offered up on an altar. There is no altar at an Agape Feast.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The offering of bread and wine is the Perpetual Sacrifice (mentioned in Malachi, chapter 3) offered up during each Mass. A priest is needed to offer up the sacrifices in the Mosaic Covenant, which the New Covenant fulfilled.

If you do a study of the words Jesus used “Do this as a memorial for me” (paraphrasing) will reveal that the words “poien” (offer this up) and “anamnesis” (make present) were used almost exclusively as part of the Jewish Liturgy and in sacrificial terms.

Also, all Sacrifices were offered up on an altar. There is no altar at an Agape Feast.

Thanks, NotWorthy, for the interesting information. I’ll consider it. The point about the lack of an altar is especially interesting.

For the moment, I have a couple of questions:

1. For the moment I have neither Bauer’s lexicon (BAGD) or Kittel’s Dictionary (TDNT) handy, and I must say that the more common definition I’m familiar with for anamnesis is “remembrance” or “memorial”-do you have a reference I could consult to look up this definition? Thanks.
2. Is it appropriate to link Jesus’ actions with those of the Jewish priesthood? Jesus was not a levite, and while Scripture identifies him as a “priest after the order of Melchizedek” who in the book of Hebrew’s is contrasted with the levitical priesthood, rather than compared.

That’s the question I’m trying to probe-I know the New Testament speaks clearly of pastors, teachers, overseers, deacons and other leadership roles, as well as a priesthood of the believer, but does it clearly indicate an ongoing need for a separate priesthood to offer sacrifice to God? Or is Christ made present in the Eucharistic meal by the provisions of the believers’ priesthood?

If anyone else has additional Scripture or ECF testimony to contribute, I’m grateful if you could send it along. Thanks in advance.

 

[RobbyS]

Thanks, NotWorthy, for the interesting information. I’ll consider it. The point about the lack of an altar is especially interesting.

For the moment, I have a couple of questions:

1. For the moment I have neither Bauer’s lexicon (BAGD) or Kittel’s Dictionary (TDNT) handy, and I must say that the more common definition I’m familiar with for anamnesis is “remembrance” or “memorial”-do you have a reference I could consult to look up this definition? Thanks.
2. Is it appropriate to link Jesus’ actions with those of the Jewish priesthood? Jesus was not a levite, and while Scripture identifies him as a “priest after the order of Melchizedek” who in the book of Hebrew’s is contrasted with the levitical priesthood, rather than compared.

That’s the question I’m trying to probe-I know the New Testament speaks clearly of pastors, teachers, overseers, deacons and other leadership roles, as well as a priesthood of the believer, but does it clearly indicate an ongoing need for a separate priesthood to offer sacrifice to God? Or is Christ made present in the Eucharistic meal by the provisions of the believers’ priesthood?

If anyone else has additional Scripture or ECF testimony to contribute, I’m grateful if you could send it along. Thanks in advance.

Nothing new, but as to the linkage between Christ and the Jewish priesthood, I think of the parallels between the birth of the nation of Israel before the mount and with Moses as the mediator between God and “the people of God.”

From Moses own tribe, that of Levi, the Lord constitutes a priesthood to continue the communion with the Lord after Moses leaves them. The institution of the Blessed Sacrament(or Lord’s Supper) in the company of a select group,the proclamation of the New Convenant (and the reclaiming of the 3,000 lost at the apostacy of the Golden Calf). the continued leadership of the Church by the select few, the need felt by even such an exaulted person as Paul to associate himself with the “Pilars of the Church,” and of course the appointment by the Church of “lesser” officials like Stephen and Phillip show an anticipation of the need for continuation, of a continued relationship between the Lord and His people.

The Protestant focus on the supposed egalitarianism of the early Church ignores the emergence of an established leadership and also the centrality of the Sacraments in the worship life in the Church. Historically, it arises from the rejection of the whole history of the Church after the Apostolic period. There is less of this found in Luther and Calvin and others steeped in the writings of the Fathers, but certainly in the radicals we see a wholesale rejection of history and of course of the sacerdotal priesthood. There is the theme of corruption emerging immediately, a process not to be interrupted, of a purity of doctrine and practice not to be recovered until the Reformation. In short, they beg the question you advance since the Reformation begins with a rejection of the legitimacy of the priesthood and a demand t that the priests prove their right to power in terms chosen by their adversaries.

 

[jmcrae]

Is it appropriate to link Jesus’ actions with those of the Jewish priesthood? Jesus was not a levite, and while Scripture identifies him as a “priest after the order of Melchizedek” who in the book of Hebrew’s is contrasted with the levitical priesthood, rather than compared.

The story of Melchizedek is found in Genesis 14:17-24.

According to Rabbinic legend, Melchizedek had no mother or father, and did not die. (The reason is that he is one of very few characters in the Old Testament whose lineage is not described.) Thus, he is a “type” of Christ, God made Man.

 

[St_Aloysius]

The Fathers saw the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”

I’ve also heard what you were told earlier: That the Greek word commonly translated “do this” is familiar sacrificial language and may be translated “offer this.” In fact, in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Scripture), it is commonly used in the Book of Leviticus when the subject matter is an offering of sorts. And as Papa B (Pope Benedict XVI) points out in his book *Jesus of Nazareth *(or maybe it was God Is Near Us), the words of institution themselves (“This is my Body–this is my Blood”) had familiarity in the sacrificial system. (I’m assuming this formula served as a reminder to the person that the animal stood in his place).

As a Sacrifice, there must be one, of course, to offer it. You may be surprised to find out how liturgical the Book of Hebrews is in form. But in detailing the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old, it brings up a good point: Christ is our High Priest. The Levitical priesthood has served its purpose. Since it is Christ’s sacrifice, and he is our High Priest, only he can properly offer it. What’s more, no one is able to speak for himself the words of institution (“This…blood”) and yet our Lord tells us to “do this” in his memory. How?

Simple. We need someone to stand in persona Christi–“in the place of Christ.” At the Mass, the priest’s job is to offer as Christ to God the once and for all Sacrifice of the Mass. In doing so, he brings Calvary to us.

Hope that helps.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, here’s some more information on the need for a priest. I believe I got this from Scott Hahn’s talks:

***Touto poieite eis ton emen anamnesin ***translated ***“Do this in remembrance of Me”

*** Poiein(“DO”) has sacrificial overtones. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the OT, there are about seventy sacrificial uses of poiein. One example: “Now this is what you shall OFFER [Gr poieseis] upon the ALTAR: two lambs a year old, day by day, continually” (see Exodus 29:38).

ANAMNESIS(“REMEMBRANCE”) also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the NT and the Greek OT. All but once (Wisdom 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context: “There is in these SACRIFICES a REMINDER [Gr anamnesis] of sin year after year” (Heb 10:3).

“And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [Gr anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord” (Lev 24:7).

“On the day of your gladness…you shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE (Gr anamnesis) before your God” (Num 10:10).

Psalm 38 (39) is titled “A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin]. Psalm 70 (71) is titled, “To the choir-master. A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin].

In these cases the term ANAMNESIS can be translated as “memorial portion,” “memorial offering,” or “memorial sacrifice.”

Thus in the remaining two occurances of ANAMNESIS (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), Christ’s words “DO THIS*** in REMEMBRANCE*** of Me,” can be translated as “OFFER THIS for my memorial SACRIFICE.” Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little doubt this translation is appropriate. To tell someone, “offer this for my memorial sacrifice” is to direct him to fulfill a priestly function (see Heb 5:1; 8:3). So the Catholic Church has correctly regarded Christ’s words as the institution of the apostles’ priesthood and as the basis for all future priests who offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Early Church Fathers, beginnning with the very first generation, agree with the Apostle Paul that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. Nothing is more consistent in Catholic teaching then the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.

========================================================
**DIDACHE or TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (c. 70-90 A.D.) **
On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am a Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles.” (14:1-2)​

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 80 A.D.)
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have OFFERED ITS SACRIFICES [or ***offered the gifts, *

referring to the Eucharist]. (Letter to Corinthians 44:4)​

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.) **
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
========================================================
ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) **
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)
*

 

[Non_Serviam]

The Protestant focus on the supposed egalitarianism of the early Church ignores the emergence of an established leadership and also the centrality of the Sacraments in the worship life in the Church. Historically, it arises from the rejection of the whole history of the Church after the Apostolic period. There is less of this found in Luther and Calvin and others steeped in the writings of the Fathers, but certainly in the radicals we see a wholesale rejection of history and of course of the sacerdotal priesthood. There is the theme of corruption emerging immediately, a process not to be interrupted, of a purity of doctrine and practice not to be recovered until the Reformation. In short, they beg the question you advance since the Reformation begins with a rejection of the legitimacy of the priesthood and a demand t that the priests prove their right to power in terms chosen by their adversaries.

Not sure if I’m being called a radical here, but thanks for contributing.

As stated above, It’s abundantly clear from the new Testament writings that there is leadership in the churches. It is also abundantly clear that the Eucharistic meal is observed in these early churches as a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ for us. I’m simply exploring whether that leadership tended to be pastoral/educational in nature or whether it was indeed another priesthood that offered sacrifice.

Since the majority of NT verses that refer to priesthood in the church refer to all believers, I think it’s a fair question and no “begging” is involved. I’m happy to report that I’m seeing some interesting replies here that I’ll definitely be pondering.

Thanks again

 

[Non_Serviam]

The Fathers saw the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”

I’ve also heard what you were told earlier: That the Greek word commonly translated “do this” is familiar sacrificial language and may be translated “offer this.” In fact, in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Scripture), it is commonly used in the Book of Leviticus when the subject matter is an offering of sorts. And as Papa B (Pope Benedict XVI) points out in his book *Jesus of Nazareth *(or maybe it was God Is Near Us), the words of institution themselves (“This is my Body–this is my Blood”) had familiarity in the sacrificial system. (I’m assuming this formula served as a reminder to the person that the animal stood in his place).

As a Sacrifice, there must be one, of course, to offer it. You may be surprised to find out how liturgical the Book of Hebrews is in form. But in detailing the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old, it brings up a good point: Christ is our High Priest. The Levitical priesthood has served its purpose. Since it is Christ’s sacrifice, and he is our High Priest, only he can properly offer it. What’s more, no one is able to speak for himself the words of institution (“This…blood”) and yet our Lord tells us to “do this” in his memory. How?

Simple. We need someone to stand in persona Christi–“in the place of Christ.” At the Mass, the priest’s job is to offer as Christ to God the once and for all Sacrifice of the Mass. In doing so, he brings Calvary to us.

Hope that helps.

Very interesting how you’ve built on what NotWorthy proposed and gone beyond it by making a distinction from the levitical priesthood. Indeed, if we are to offer sacrifice, someone would need to offer it. But does it need to be an individual as opposed to all the believers in an assembly exercising a combined priesthood in unity with Jesus whose offering of Himself was made beyond the confines of time and space (Heb 9:24-26)?

Definitely something for me to think about-thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

Very interesting how you’ve built on what NotWorthy proposed and gone beyond it by making a distinction from the levitical priesthood. Indeed, if we are to offer sacrifice, someone would need to offer it. But does it need to be an individual as opposed to all the believers in an assembly exercising a combined priesthood in unity with Jesus whose offering of Himself was made beyond the confines of time and space (Heb 9:24-26)?

Definitely something for me to think about-thanks.

What Catholics understand is that when Jesus is talking to the crowds, then he is talking of our Salvation.

But when Jesus is speaking to just the Apostles, he is usually teaching them of the Church and Her hierarchy…

That’s why the Church can:

• offer up the Eucharist
• Bind and loose
• Forgive sins
• learn more about Jesus teachings (Jesus takes the Apostles aside to explain the parables)
• Have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth.

 

[Non_Serviam]

What Catholics understand is that when Jesus is talking to the crowds, then he is talking of our Salvation.

But when Jesus is speaking to just the Apostles, he is usually teaching them of the Church and Her hierarchy…

That’s why the Church can:

• offer up the Eucharist
• Bind and loose
• Forgive sins
• learn more about Jesus teachings (Jesus takes the Apostles aside to explain the parables)
• Have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth.

interesting approach-I’ve tended toward treating material in the Gospels as applicable to all unless indicated by context. I’ll have to give this some thought.

Given the interpretive approach you mention above, who would the Catholic church say was the target audience of the evangelists when composing their gospels? (I know “target audience” isn’t the best choice of words, but nothing else as clear comes to mind at the moment)

 

[NotWorthy]

interesting approach-I’ve tended toward treating material in the Gospels as applicable to all unless indicated by context. I’ll have to give this some thought.

Given the interpretive approach you mention above, who would the Catholic church say was the target audience of the evangelists when composing their gospels? (I know “target audience” isn’t the best choice of words, but nothing else as clear comes to mind at the moment)

Mark’s Gospel was to the Christians suffering persecution. He showed that Jesus revealed His glory on the Cross, and they were suffering for all the right reasons.

Matthew’s Gospel is written to the Jews. That’s why he spends so much time showing how Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies.

Luke’s Gospel is address to Gentiles everywhere. He spends more time explaining Jewish customs, where Matthew suspects the audience is familiar with these customs.

John, written well after the Synoptics, wants his audience to learn more about Jesus the God-Man.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Mark’s Gospel was to the Christians suffering persecution. He showed that Jesus revealed His glory on the Cross, and they were suffering for all the right reasons.

Matthew’s Gospel is written to the Jews. That’s why he spends so much time showing how Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies.

Luke’s Gospel is address to Gentiles everywhere. He spends more time explaining Jewish customs, where Matthew suspects the audience is familiar with these customs.

John, written well after the Synoptics, wants his audience to learn more about Jesus the God-Man.

Interesting, those are very similar to what I believe. Thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting, those are very similar to what I believe. Thanks

I believe it’s Christian tradition.

 

[Nita]

Very interesting how you’ve built on what NotWorthy proposed and gone beyond it by making a distinction from the levitical priesthood. Indeed, if we are to offer sacrifice, someone would need to offer it. But does it need to be an individual as opposed to **all **the believers in an assembly exercising a combined priesthood in unity with Jesus whose offering of Himself was made beyond the confines of time and space (Heb 9:24-26)?

Isaiah foretold a new priesthood in the New Covenant:

Is 66:18-21 “…and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; … And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Isaiah foretold a new priesthood in the New Covenant:

Is 66:18-21 “…and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; … And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.”

That’s interesting. I never knew of that prophecy. Notice also that in Jeremiah (I believe it’s Jeremiah), the Lord will send new shepherds. First a Shepherd, then shepherds.

 

[davidv]

That’s interesting. I never knew of that prophecy. Notice also that in Jeremiah (I believe it’s Jeremiah), the Lord will send new shepherds. First a Shepherd, then shepherds.

It is in Ezekial:

Ezek.34

1. 
   ]11] "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I,* I myself** will search for my sheep, and will seek them out.
   *]15] I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep,
   RSV

 

[NotWorthy]

It is in Ezekial:

Ezek.34

1. 
   ]11] "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I,* I myself** will search for my sheep, and will seek them out.
   *]15] I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep,

1. 
   Yes, I"m aware of the “Shepherd” quote. But later on, God promises to send “shepherds”

 

[davidv]

Yes, I"m aware of the “Shepherd” quote. But later on, God promises to send “shepherds”

Jer.3:15 "`And I will give you** shepherds** after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding