Connecting "Real Presence" to Apostolic Succession/Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
I have friends who are Protestant, and very friendly towards the Catholic way of seeing things. They believe in a kind of “real presence.” I’m having trouble explaining why inter-communion is not a thing. One of them came to Holy Thursday with me last night, and I feel as though she appreciated most of the Catholic approach to the Eucharist.

So I’m just having a hard time fitting together all the peculiar Catholic pieces. Can you guys help me understand the link between the Eucharist and having a priesthood/apostolic succession?

My friends don’t really understand why a ministerial priest has to be the one to consecrate the Eucharist. Biblical and historical evidence would be great.
 
Think about it: at a certain time, only “Aaron’s sons” in the Old Covenant were allowed to offer the sacrifices. The penitent had to bring the sacrifice, of course, but they couldn’t be the one to offer it. Similarly, in the New Covenant, only a certain class of people- the ordained priests- can offer our sacrifice.

It wouldn’t have been OK for a group of Jews to split off and start performing sacrifices themselves, and gentiles certainly couldn’t “copy” the Jewish priesthood. Their sacrifices would mean nothing because they had no place doing what they were doing. Likewise, protestants (particularly those who believe in the Real Presence) don’t consecrate validly/licitly because they have no authority to do so.
 
Well, I think one problem I have in getting this across is the “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

Because the Eucharist depends on the priesthood, and the priesthood is based on the Eucharist (as a sacrifice). And both of these concepts developed together.

So for instance, Christian ministers were not readily called “priests” in the sacrificial sense, at least not at first. I think it would be most useful to have early Christian evidence.

Because if the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, then there does not seem to be a need for a separate “class” of people. And many Protestants who do not consider the Eucharist a sacrifice (in the Catholic sense) still profess some kind of Real Presence — like my friend. So just as anyone can baptize, why can’t anyone preside at the Eucharist? (According to the logic). It seems consistent (in their view).
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
So I’m just having a hard time fitting together all the peculiar Catholic pieces.
Click to expand...
What might those be, exactly?
catholic1seeks said:
My friends don’t really understand why a ministerial priest has to be the one to consecrate the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
We can see very early, in the letters of Paul to the Church in Corinth, that there were already abuses of the Eucharist. Very early the valid Eucharist was considered that which was consecrated by the successor of the Apostles. This was done so that those who held genuine faith could be made evident.
 
Very early the valid Eucharist was considered that which was consecrated by the successor of the Apostles. This was done so that those who held genuine faith could be made evident.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Ignatius of Antioch? Do you have anyone else in mind?
 
While I agree with the sadness of lack of inter-communion, 500 years have flowed down the Tiber. Changes have accumulated.

The problem w the Eucharist between Catholics and Lutherans/Anglicans (and unspecified others holding to the Real Presence) isn’t so much the details of the Lord’s presence, but in who administers it. There are pretty divisive differences on whom may licitly celebrate a valid Eucharist (apologies for mis-wording - I’m dragging this through two languages and denominations). Until the various ruling bodies agree ecumenically, it is what it is.

I will say, as a Lutheran I do consider the RCC to have a valid Eucharist (even if I don’t agree w some specific phrasings and practises). I wouldn’t even try to attend, bc it’s not allowed, out of respect.
 
So what would a Luthern/Anglican (of your persuasion) say to someone who believed in Real Presence, but who also said that anyone could preside over the Eucharist? (Ordination being, in their view, primarily for preaching).
 
Last edited:
I would say an ordination is neccessary to celebrate the Eucharist (except extreme Deserted Island thought experiments), in that you need to understand, study and be taught about the holy ritual you are handling, especially in administrering to others.
The exact details, what is required, if it is a sacrament, and how to live as an ordained person, differ between denominations, like the view on celibacy. (Including the EO, not just the RC and their branching churches here).

That is how I would describe the situation to a curious outsider.
 
So it is more of practical, institutional requirement rather than a divine, sacramental necessity? In other words, ordination properly equips someone to know what is happening, how to do the ritual, etc., but there is no sacramental or priestly character in the ordination?

I think the latter (priestly) would differentiate the Orthodox/Catholic understanding from this.

And so the reason an ordained person can only lead the Eucharist is because that is the nature of his ordination (being a ministerial priest).
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
but there is no sacramental or priestly character in the ordination?
Click to expand...
Someone native speaker might answer this more fully, but no, Lutherans do not consider ordination a sacrament. It’s important, and part of the beneficial practices (looking for translation, sigh) as are confession, matrimony etc, but not a sacrament. That doesn’t make it less reverant, solemn and a host of other synonyms, though.
I am aware that you won’t agree, and that’s fine. I’m not arguing, just clarifying.
 
Here are extremely relevant passages from the first century Letter to the Corinthians (probably written by Clement, who was bishop of Rome, either during or sometime later in the first century).

This letter is responding to a dissension in the Church in Corinth. Some of the faithful there had ejected the church’s rightful leaders. Following is Clement’s argument about the rightful leaders of the church. In the quotes below, the letter parallels the situation with the Old Covenant, and its rightful priests, to ministers of the Church, and how there must be order.

Chapter 41-44
Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. …

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. …
[…]

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Notice a few significant points from Clement’s letter:
  1. The writer mentions the High Priest, the Priest, and the Levite, as well as the “layman.” Many have noticed that this distinction corresponds to the Bishop, Presbyter/Priest, and Deacon (as other early Christians would use these terms to describe the three orders). Whether one accepts this or not in Clement’s case, it’s clear that he is referencing the OT in order to make a divide between appointed leaders and the lay faithful.
  2. Clement connects the appointed leaders with the concept of apostolic succession. Essentially, God sent Jesus, who commissioned the Apostles, who ordained their “first fruits,” who in turn ordered that “other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”
  3. And so, we can conclude that Clement/1st century Roman church understood that the proper ordained leaders of the church are those who were ultimately (in succession) appointed by the Apostles, and that this gave the ordained leaders the authority to “fulfill the duties” of the episcopate, which are separate from the lay faithful (everyone must “not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him”).
  4. I should quote the second paragraph in full again:
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple…
Click to expand...
Clement is essentially saying that, no, you cannot gather and “be church” (Eucharist) in any old way. Just as in the OT the sacrifices were done by the priests and at the altar, so there is a specific order in the New Convenant.
  1. Besides the fact that other early Christians saw the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Didache, Ignatius of Antioch), it seems safe to conclude that this letter sees the ordained leaders as offering sacrifices as well, as he illustrates his point from the OT priests and its sacrifices.
So among other things, I think there is good reason to think Clement/this letter/Roman church of 1st century understood ordained leaders to be priests, in some sense, who had specific duties granted to them from God > Jesus > the Apostles (or the bishops who they appointed), among the duties were something analogous to the Old Testament offering of sacrifices. And we know what that is… the Eucharist. 😀

Wow so Clement’s letter basically had most of what I needed.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what other Christians may think of the authority behind Clement’s letter, I think we should all agree that it provides an important link between the biblical data on the one hand (which is not totally clear on HOW to do the Eucharist, or ordination), and then the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the priesthood on the other hand (which would become more and more explicit down the centuries).

Granted, Clement’s letter is not talking about the Real Presence, but I think it provides an important clue in the whole necessity of ordained ministerial priests for the sacraments.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top