Definitely NOT the Body and Blood?

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

Racer_X

Guest
Does the Church teach that the Real Presence is found only in those liturgies with a valid priesthood and nowhere else with certainty?

Or, is it just that Catholic/Orthodox churches are the only places where we have something like a guarantee and those celebrations outside we cannot say with faith that it truly is the Body and Blood?

That is, does the Church teach that it is definitely not the Body and Blood outside of the visible Church, or do we just say that we cannot say one or way the other? That we just know with certainty that ours is the true Sacrament but cannot say anything certain about the outsiders?

I would have hard time with the stronger form of the claim. I can say with certainty that I receive our Lord’s Flesh in the Eucharist because of the unbroken Tradition and Apostolic succession. But I do not see with what basis I can make any assertion about what God may do outside of that succession and Tradition.

Seems to me that if God wants to honor another believing community with His Precious Body and Blood, that is His business. It is just not part of our revelation that He is in fact doing so.

It is part of our Revelation that the Lord graces us with His Presence in our Sacrament. Is it also Revelation that He does so nowhere else?
 
Well…regardless of how you feel, the fact remains that only properly ordained priest, i.e. Catholic and Orthodox Priest who can trace their Apostolic sucession, can consecrate the Host and Wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. True Presence ONLY occurs within The Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
 
No matter how firmly I may believe that I can validly consecrate the bread and wine, I cannot. I’m not a validly ordained priest, not within the apostolic succession, not acting in persona Christi. If I attempt to consecrate the bread and wine, nothing happens.

God can do anything, but he does not make a mockery of his own sacraments. Outward signs, instituted by Christ, and given to His Church, to give grace.
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
Well…regardless of how you feel, the fact remains that only properly ordained priest, i.e. Catholic and Orthodox Priest who can trace their Apostolic sucession, can consecrate the Host and Wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. True Presence ONLY occurs within The Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for this statement?

I understand the basis for the claim that validly ordained priest can consecrate the Host and Wine.

I do understand the basis the claim that we are certain that no one else can.

If we say, “Come to our Catholic Mass and receive our Lord in the Sacrament,” that I am certain is valid claim. If we say, “There is no reason to believe that you can find Him elsewhere.” I can also agree with. But I cannot see the further conclusion that we are certain that He cannot be found elsewhere.

It is like the statements:
(1) There is life on earth. (certainly true)
(2) We have no evidence of life on other worlds (certainly true)
(3) There is definitely no life on other worlds (not certain. Does not follow from 1 and 2)
 
40.png
JimG:
God can do anything, but he does not make a mockery of his own sacraments.
Click to expand...
How would Christians with a faith in Christ who have come together and believe, based on Scripture, that their Lord’s Supper celebration is truly the Body and Blood, in faithfulness and submission to “do this in remembrance of me” … how would that be a “mockery” of the sacrament?

But more importantly, in all humility, I know and have faith in what God has definitely said and done. But in that same humility, I do not presume to know God would or would not do that is not part of our Catholic Revelation. That is the type of Pharisiac attitude of presumption–thinking that you know more than you really know-- that prevented some from knowing Christ as our Lord.
 
quote=Racer X There is life on earth. (certainly true)
(2) We have no evidence of life on other worlds (certainly true)
(3) There is definitely no life on other worlds (not certain. Does not follow from 1 and 2)
[/quote]

Fanciful speculations are not factored into theological discussions. Since there is no proof of alien life, intelllegence or spirituality, it is useless to consider.
 
Racer X:
What is the basis for this statement?
Click to expand...
Frome the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
 
Concerning the question about the consecretion of Bread and wine, I have to say first the Eucharist must be understood in the context of what is a Sacrament. The Sacraments (the 7 Sacraments) have to be understood as Saving acts of Christ, IN and Through the Church by which we are united to Christ Paschal Sacrifice and Christ worship of His Father. Specifically the Apostolic Church, given the fact that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper with His Disciples and they alone. It was to the Disciples He gave the command to “Do this in rememberance of me”. Also, from the NT and later the writings of the Fathers of the Church, we can see that the Eucharist (Breaking of the Bread) was always an action of the Apostles themselves or one who was desginated/ordained by the laying on of hands either by an Apostle or one of their successors. In the NT these men are called Presbyters or elders or overseers but the fact remained they were in direct succession and communion with the Apostles and the Apostolic Tradition. Now, it can be pointed out that Jesus himself said where ever two or three are gathered in my name there I am, and thus that has to be true, however, it doesnot refer to the specific nature of a Sacrament as mentioned above. It has only been the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western Traditions) which have maintained this Apostolic succession thus preserving the true nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist as Liturgy and Real Presence.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Frome the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Racer X:

Since you seem to want a syllogism, let’s use the above.
  1. Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
  2. This (Luthern, Anglican, whatever) minister is not a validly ordained priest.
  3. Therefore, he cannot consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
 
Kay Cee:
Racer X:

Since you seem to want a syllogism, let’s use the above.
  1. Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
  2. This (Luthern, Anglican, whatever) minister is not a validly ordained priest.
  3. Therefore, he cannot consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Great answer but I would add something to your number 1. I will repeat your answer with my added portion in bold.
  1. Only validly ordained priests **(who intends to do as the Church does) **can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
 
It was always my understanding from Catechism that through the Sacrament of Holy Orders the Priest had received an increase in Sanctifying Grace, I guess giving him more Sanctifying Grace than a normal person. Through that as well as his position as a Priest in the Holy Catholic Church he had the authority granted to him by God to make the miraculous transformation occur, provided he was in a state of grace, properly said the consecratory prayers and used valid substance for the host and wine… If all those conditions were met the miraculous transformation took place. If not, it didn’t.

Now as I understand it the Lutheran Church also believes that the Eucharist becomes the actual body and blood of Christ, but AFTER you receive NOT before. Their belief is your faith and belief changes the host into the Body and Blood of Christ, not the Priest, with his prayers and position.

I don’t think other Protestant faiths accept he transformation at all and see the Eucharist as merely symbolic. I am not sure about the Episcopals or Anglicans, nor on the Eastern and Eastern Orthodox faiths.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Great answer but I would add something to your number 1. I will repeat your answer with my added portion in bold.
  1. Only validly ordained priests **(who intends to do as the Church does) **can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Well, I was quoting the Catechism.

If we add your distinction, wouldn’t it be conceivable to attend what you thought was Mass, received what you thought was Communion, but since the priest’s intent was not fully in line with the Church, you are deceived?
 
Kay Cee:
Racer X:

Since you seem to want a syllogism, let’s use the above.
  1. Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
  2. This (Luthern, Anglican, whatever) minister is not a validly ordained priest.
  3. Therefore, he cannot consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
All right. But where is it revealed that bread and wine can become Body and Blood only during a Eucharistic consecration and nowhere else? (1) seems to me to be saying the equivalent of only ordained ministers may preside at a Mass, which I fully accept. My question is, what reason do we have to believe that our Lord’s Flesh and Blood can only be found in the Mass (or its Orthodox equivalent) and is never present anywhere else.

Let me clarify what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.

I am NOT saying that we have any reason whatsoever for believing that the Real Presence can be found outside of the apostolic succession. That is why we Catholics refrain from participating in “Lord’s Supper” celebrations outside of the Faith, to make it clear that we do not recognize the Sacrament to be elsewhere.

But that is not at all the same as saying that others definitely do not have Him in their Lord’s Supper, only that if in fact they do, we Catholics do not know it and so cannot participate.

To say, “I know He is to be found in our Sacrament and I have no reason to believe He can be found elsewhere” is not the same thing is “He cannot be found elsewhere.” So far, I have only seen evidence that the former is found in the deposit of faith, not the latter.
 
40.png
palmas85:
I don’t think other Protestant faiths accept he transformation at all and see the Eucharist as merely symbolic. I am not sure about the Episcopals or Anglicans, nor on the Eastern and Eastern Orthodox faiths.
Click to expand...
One thing to keep in mind is that the reality of the Body and Blood
does not have anything to do with whether we believe in it or not. Christ is present in the sacrament at Mass whether you believe it or not, for the simple reason that He is really there! And if He is ever present elsewhere, it will likewise be so no matter what those people believe about it. Or what we Catholics believe about it.
 
Some Anglicans/Old Catholics/Charismatic Episcopal Church, etc., might have valid succession and therefore the True Presence. Some of these groups received their orders from Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops, so some of them might have apostolic succession. There is no way of knowing which ones do and which ones don’t though.
 
Racer X:
All right. But where is it revealed that bread and wine can become Body and Blood only during a Eucharistic consecration and nowhere else?
Click to expand...
Are you asking for a Bible quote? It seems to me that Jesus revealed this at the Last Supper and that it was understood that way by the apostles (maybe not right then, but certainly later since that is what the Church has always taught).
(1) seems to me to be saying the equivalent of only ordained ministers may preside at a Mass, which I fully accept. My question is, what reason do we have to believe that our Lord’s Flesh and Blood can only be found in the Mass (or its Orthodox equivalent) and is never present anywhere else.
Click to expand...
I never said that. The Eucharist can be found in the tabernacle, in a pyx, in fact anywhere after the bread and wine is consecrated.
Let me clarify what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.

I am NOT saying that we have any reason whatsoever for believing that the Real Presence can be found outside of the apostolic succession. That is why we Catholics refrain from participating in “Lord’s Supper” celebrations outside of the Faith, to make it clear that we do not recognize the Sacrament to be elsewhere.

But that is not at all the same as saying that others definitely do not have Him in their Lord’s Supper, only that if in fact they do, we Catholics do not know it and so cannot participate.

To say, “I know He is to be found in our Sacrament and I have no reason to believe He can be found elsewhere” is not the same thing is “He cannot be found elsewhere.” So far, I have only seen evidence that the former is found in the deposit of faith, not the latter.
Click to expand...
Unsure what you’re saying. Are you saying that some Protestants might be validly ordained priests?
 
Kay Cee:
Well, I was quoting the Catechism.

If we add your distinction, wouldn’t it be conceivable to attend what you thought was Mass, received what you thought was Communion, but since the priest’s intent was not fully in line with the Church, you are deceived?
Click to expand...
The Catechism must be taken as a whole.

See paragraph 1128 (bold emphasis added).

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

The priest still must intend to do what the Church does.

This is one reason why I doubt the validity of the sacraments from some of these priests who have separated themselves from the Church by their own choice.
 
Racer X:
All right. But where is it revealed that bread and wine can become Body and Blood only during a Eucharistic consecration and nowhere else? (1) seems to me to be saying the equivalent of only ordained ministers may preside at a Mass, which I fully accept. My question is, what reason do we have to believe that our Lord’s Flesh and Blood can only be found in the Mass (or its Orthodox equivalent) and is never present anywhere else.

Let me clarify what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.

I am NOT saying that we have any reason whatsoever for believing that the Real Presence can be found outside of the apostolic succession. That is why we Catholics refrain from participating in “Lord’s Supper” celebrations outside of the Faith, to make it clear that we do not recognize the Sacrament to be elsewhere.

But that is not at all the same as saying that others definitely do not have Him in their Lord’s Supper, only that if in fact they do, we Catholics do not know it and so cannot participate.

To say, “I know He is to be found in our Sacrament and I have no reason to believe He can be found elsewhere” is not the same thing is “He cannot be found elsewhere.” So far, I have only seen evidence that the former is found in the deposit of faith, not the latter.
Click to expand...
Because the consecration only occurs during the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) in the confines of the Eucharistic Rite (Mass for the Latin Church, Divine Liturgy for the Byzantines, and so on).

This is what the Church teaches and has always taught.
 
Racer X:
Does the Church teach that the Real Presence is found only in those liturgies with a valid priesthood and nowhere else with certainty?
?
Click to expand...
no priest = no Eucharist
the final rupture of the protesting Churches in the Reformation came with the issue of the priesthood, when the sacramental origin of ordained priesthood was denied, the denial of the reality of the Eucharist and its demotion to symbolic status was inevitable. the Eucharist may be validly confected only through the authority of Jesus Christ as participation in His one perfect sacrificial action, offered to the Father through the action of the Holy Spirit. Without those elements, which are denied in whole or in part in the liturgy and sacramental system of all churches save the Catholic and Orthodox who maintain the links to apostolic authority, no Eucharist and therefore no Transubstatian and no Real Presence can exist. Check out the catechism sections on the ordained priesthood.
 
Racer X:
All right. But where is it revealed that bread and wine can become Body and Blood only during a Eucharistic consecration and nowhere else? .
Click to expand...
where else is it revealed, other than the institution narrative of the Gospels immediately followed by the accounts of the passion and resurrection if which it is an essential part, and in the letters of the apostles describing the manner in which they continue participation in that mystery, that this transformation occurs? Find me a source in divine revelation that gives another context for the confection of the Eucharist outside the words and actions ordained by Jesus Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top