Defending the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rabbysmom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rabbysmom

Guest
How do I defend the Catholic position of the Eucharist? My friend asked me the other day in our discussion why can’t any other priest (non Catholic) do the same thing? (ie, evoke the real presence) Well, first of all, at least in the Episcopal church the priest may or may not even believe in the presence so it almost doesn’t seem a fair question. Any suggestions?
 
I think it would be wise to, as you seem to have started, explain what the “real presence” is, and how we understand it.

My understanding is that most (Lutherans excluded) Protestants believe their take on the Eucharist is symbolic. Lutherans believe in the real presence, but in a different way than Catholics do; they reject the notion of transubstantiation.

As far as the priest is concerned, Catholic Bishops and the priests they ordain follow in a direct line back to Peter, so-called Apostolic succession. Other ministers in other denominations do not, and as such do not have the ability to confer the consecration of the bread and wine through the Holy Spirit into Christ’s body and blood.
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
How do I defend the Catholic position of the Eucharist? My friend asked me the other day in our discussion why can’t any other priest (non Catholic) do the same thing? (ie, evoke the real presence) Well, first of all, at least in the Episcopal church the priest may or may not even believe in the presence so it almost doesn’t seem a fair question. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Tell him that there are non-Catholic priests who can do this. They’re called Orthodox 👍
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
How do I defend the Catholic position of the Eucharist? My friend asked me the other day in our discussion why can’t any other priest (non Catholic) do the same thing? (ie, evoke the real presence) Well, first of all, at least in the Episcopal church the priest may or may not even believe in the presence so it almost doesn’t seem a fair question. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has always held that only validly ordained (apostolic) priests can have a valid Eucharist. This is as old as the 1st-2nd century as we have in the writings of Irenaeus:

“Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (110 AD)
 
John chapter 6 convinced me of the Catholic position concerning the Eucharist. And believe me, I was no easy sell!

There is a relationship between the Catholic Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood. Not all who love God are called to this vocation, but the ones who become priests are entrusted with a great responsibility. It all comes down to authority, by whose authority do the Catholic Priests offer the Eucharist? I would claim they have been given their authority by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. By whose authority do other protestant pastors offer their version of the Eucharist?:confused: Last time I checked, those outside of the Catholic Church couldn’t even agree on what the Lord’s Supper is.🤷
 
Newsy said:
John chapter 6 convinced me of the Catholic position concerning the Eucharist. And believe me, I was no easy sell!

There is a relationship between the Catholic Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood. Not all who love God are called to this vocation, but the ones who become priests are entrusted with a great responsibility. It all comes down to authority, by whose authority do the Catholic Priests offer the Eucharist? I would claim they have been given their authority by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. By whose authority do other protestant pastors offer their version of the Eucharist?:confused: Last time I checked, those outside of the Catholic Church couldn’t even agree on what the Lord’s Supper is.🤷
Click to expand...
Exactly…it’s all about authority.
 
Thank you for the replies. The thing is, in my Episcopal church- now turned Anglican (they left the NEC) they do talk about Apolistalic Succession so it’s pretty confusing!
 
rabby(name removed by moderator) said:
Thank you for the replies. The thing is, in my Episcopal church- now turned Anglican (they left the NEC) they do talk about Apolistalic Succession so it’s pretty confusing!
Click to expand...
Truly having Apostalic succession is a historical fact, not a statement. The Catholic Church is the only one that can show this in history. Other’s can site where they connect to that succession, but this would be the point in which they left it, not re-routed it to the new reformed catholic church.

Once a group leaves the communion with Rome, there is no succession, and therefore no authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top