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

[Franciscan]

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.

I know this is not biblical but the term presbyter is and here we have the ancient churches understanding ofwhat a persbyter funcions as-An offerer of sacrifice(Eucharist) therefore a priest…

From the first council of Nicea…

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters , whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

 

[RobbyS]

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

The point being the confining all discussion to the Christian writings in the Canon. Luther demanded it on certain points; the radicals–like Carlstadt et al–on all points, so that every post-canonical writing be treated as irrelevant. The undeniable event is that the old sacrifices were, more or less, abandoned after the destruction of the second temple and the priests were dispersed among the general population. All brought down, as before the return from Exile, to the same level. In an way. Christian Jews had already anticipated this by a kind of new festival of the passover, based on the offering of bread and wine on the altar of the Presence, the sacrifice of Malchesidak, the traditional pairing of the the animal sacrifice of the shepard and the agrarian sharing of the fruits of the field.

But the lamb has been slain, so no further need of that: rather the sharing of the bread and wine which become his very flesh and blood. A new feast, the Lord, said, but one anticipatd by the old.

As to who should offer it? Even evangelical churches followed the natural order and have the “pastor” present the offering. Someone ordained if not by a bishop then by the congregation, one deputized to perform the “service.”

But here I pause to ask: service to whom? To God or to the congregation? is it an act of worship or an act of homage to the faith of the observer? Is the pastor a minister of God or of the congregation of believers?

 

[Non_Serviam]

I know this is not biblical but the term presbyter is and here we have the ancient churches understanding ofwhat a persbyter funcions as-An offerer of sacrifice(Eucharist) therefore a priest…

From the first council of Nicea…

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters , whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Interesting-I should have included Councils when I said I would consider the ECF’s. This makes it abundantly clear that the idea of requiring a bishop/priest to consecrate the Eucharist was rock solid by 325. Now I simply need work back from there and see what other references exist. Thanks.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Interesting that there are instances of convents that act on this hypothesis. The whole bunch will recite the words of consecration together and then have communion. But why hypothesize such a situation when we don’t find any confirmation of the practice in the New Testament? ( In the case of the nuns it is to get around the fact that the Church will not ordain one of their number to offer the sacrifice.) If one is to follow the form of the Last Supper, and given that the Apostles delegated tasks to pereform other matters, why wouldn’t they have followed suit here and appointed someone to play the role of presider? That doesn’t necessitate somone with permanent powers and a CLASS of presbyters, but the historical evidence of the Church moving back from the Council shows the existence of one so far as we can have evidence on the point.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Interesting that there are instances of convents that act on this hypothesis. The whole bunch will recite the words of consecration together and then have communion. But why hypothesize such a situation when we don’t find any confirmation of the practice in the New Testament? ( In the case of the nuns it is to get around the fact that the Church will not ordain one of their number to offer the sacrifice.) If one is to follow the form of the Last Supper, and given that the Apostles delegated tasks to perform other matters, why wouldn’t they have followed suit here and appointed someone to play the role of presider? That doesn’t necessitate someone with permanent powers and a CLASS of presbyters, but the historical evidence of the Church moving back from the Council shows the existence of one so far as we can have evidence on the point.

I wasn’t aware of that. For me, it’s clear that the need for a specific priesthood has a significant impact on what choices one has with regard to celebrating Jesus’ death and resurrection. there is another thread that is approaching the same thought from a different direction.

Since this seems to be one of the key areas that makes or breaks one’s ecclesiology, it’s one of a few areas that I’m looking for concrete proof of certain practices/beliefs that are often simply accepted without being questioned.

Your comments are also good food for thought, and I’ll take them into consideration as well.

thanks.

 

[RobbyS]

I wasn’t aware of that. For me, it’s clear that the need for a specific priesthood has a significant impact on what choices one has with regard to celebrating Jesus’ death and resurrection. there is another thread that is approaching the same thought from a different direction.

Since this seems to be one of the key areas that makes or breaks one’s ecclesiology, it’s one of a few areas that I’m looking for concrete proof of certain practices/beliefs that are often simply accepted without being questioned.

Your comments are also good food for thought, and I’ll take them into consideration as well.

thanks. /QUOTE

A class has been reading the Pentateuch, and noted the phenomenon of the cloud that enveloped Moses and Jesus at the time of the Tranfiguration. Yesterday, we read of the Transfiguration, and I see that unlike in Exodus where only Moses was enveloped, so the three disciples with Jesus were enveloped and heard the voice of God. If nothing else it shows a lesser remove between God and men. .

 

[mdcpensive1]

Many of the posts reminded me of some of the things I have learned over the years. One of them is the fact that when we went from the old to the new covenant there was a change in the priesthood.

There has always been a priesthood in Hebrew history that was always needed. First it was in the family with the “first born”. Then it was Levitical. There was always a three-fold priesthood in Hebrew circles. The ordinary priesthood of the people, the priests who carried the sacrifices of the people to the altar in the temple and the high priest who was the oversaw the events. On the festival of Atonement, many priests were needed to offer the many sacrifices of the faithful. One priest could not handle it himself.

Now it is the priesthood of Melchisadek in which we still have the three-fold priesthood today, with our ordinary priesthood of the people, the sacramental priesthood which shares in that of the highest priesthood being that of Christ, our own High Priest.

Why have priests? Priestly functions include the ones who offer the sacrifice. Why does the Catholic Church have priests? Still the same answer, they offer the unbloody sacrifice of Christ that is perpetually going on along with ourselves to the Father.

mdcpensive1