How well can you answer this question?

[fellowChristian]

“Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.”

From another thread.

What comes to mind is this…

Think of it like this, a looong game of tag.Dating about 33ad? And still going!

From the Apostles to now.

Jesus gives the Apostles authority in Matt 16:18 and in John 20:21

And when it is time to replace Judas Acts 1:15-26 the 11 with Peter speaking pray to God and draw lots. That person becomes an Apostle. By the laying on of hands (tag) and through out Scripture you hear them “Laying on of hands” by a bishop to “ordain” new ministers.

Even Paul who was picked by God only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop.

Yes we all are part of the priesthood but only those who were “touched” by a bishop are considered “ordained”.

And only a bishop can ordain a new priest.
Those who are ordained, annointed are the only ones to come into the “Holy of Holies” Old Testament -Leviticus.Numbers 3:3,Exodus 40:15

Now all those Reformers who broke off from the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther was a monk. He could not ordain.

King Henry viii was a king. He could not ordain.

John Calvin was a lawyer. He could not ordain.

Any way that is the short of it.For scripture on ordaining
click here…scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

 

[NPC]

Probably not very well… but I’ll give my tuppence worth.

I don’t think anyone will argue that Christ said Protestants can’t change bread and wine into His Body and Blood and that Catholics and Orthodox can - simply because these denominations did not exist at the time. One was either a Christian or they were not. Christ clearly gave power to his disciples to celebrate the Mass - the first Christian priests, not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox - however the priests who stayed in communion with Rome at the Reformation are the ‘descendants’ of the first Christian priests and inherited the priesthood from Christ through the Apostles. (This is indeed a bugger to explain…). It was not the Catholic Church or the Bible which prohibited the Protestant denominations from celebrating Mass (transubstantiation), rather it was they themselves who rejected outright the Church founded by Christ Himself and therefore rejected the priesthood instituted by Christ, and because of this all the sacraments which go with it. The Protestant churches were founded by men, the Catholic Church was founded by God himself - man cannot give man the power to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ…

 

[Montalban]

“Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.”

The question is faulty.

Orthodox don’t believe in transubstantiation as Catholics do.

As for Scripture Jesus says in the Gospel of John that his body is real food. When asked to clarify this, he repeats it, so we know he’s not talking metaphorically.

John 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I don’t think that Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, et al ever tried to ordain anyone, so they are not really at issue WRT ordination.

The issue is the bishops who followed them: Did they continue to ordain, or not?

The Church has addressed this question.

Gerry

 

[manualman]

The question is faulty.

Orthodox don’t believe in transubstantiation as Catholics do.

THAT’s news to me. I always thought our orthodox brothers shared our belief that the bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of christ, not symbolically, not merely supernaturally, not alongSIDE the bread and wine…

Is there a further distinction I’m not aware of or is this just a case of EO not liking a word that wasn’t around when the big split happened?

 

[YADA]

“Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.”

Well first of all, the scriptures [in the entirety of which you use the term - Bible - Hebrew Texts and New Testament Texts] came into being after the Church, being written through out time by the early followers of Christ [from the apostles through the first hundred years or so]. The compilation of books we have followed around 390 AD +/-…So there will be no references to “Protestant” being prohibited found in scripture…are straw man argument.

Clearly the scriptures contain references to [and illustrate the creation of] positions within the church - the original apostles, the successors [see Acts], then the creation of deacons etc.

Jesus instituted the sacrifice of the Mass at the Last Supper, read the writings of the early Christians [sometimes refered to as the Early Church Fathers]. Read their writings on the Eucharistic gatherings - read the Didache - one of the earliest. If you are honest, these writings will clearly describe actions, faith, and practic that sound [and are] very “Catholic” You will not read, nor perceive in these writings the beliefs and worship found in protestant services…this is the changing of the bread and wine in practice…

Clearly, the laying on of hands, the passing on of the ministerial office is indentified in scripture and found in the Christian practice…as in how the earliest Christians understood their faith…this includes the early referecnes to the Church as a “Catholic” [univeral - united group]. Please note that St. Paul writes to the Church that resides in Corinth or to the Church that resides in Rome. He does not write to the Galatian Church as if it is distinct in any way [belief, practice or faith]…

The early Church believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist…the Protestant Churches have a variation of belief - all of which are less than what the early church taught [believed in faith and practice] and what the Catholic Church [and Orthodox Church] continues to teach to this day.

 

[AgnosTheist]

As for Scripture Jesus says in the Gospel of John that his body is real food. When asked to clarify this, he repeats it, so we know he’s not talking metaphorically.

where did he say that an ordinary bread and wine transforms into his actual flesh and blood? and uh, after the so called transubstantiation, the wafer didnt look, feel & taste any different than your common wafer. (thats why i always say this is a matter of make believe)

John 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

there is literally real food and literally real drink, both in the catholic sacrament and in the bible last supper. But the flesh & blood isnt literal in reality, neither was it literal in the last supper.

 

[Erich]

By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up.

From the last paragraph of the article:

One side note, to those of you who read this who are not pastors: this same challenge applies secondarily to you. Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

 

[YADA]

where did he say that an ordinary bread and wine transforms into his actual flesh and blood? and uh, after the so called transubstantiation, the wafer didnt look, feel & taste any different than your common wafer. (thats why i always say this is a matter of make believe)

there is literally real food and literally real drink, both in the catholic sacrament and in the bible last supper. But the flesh & blood isnt literal in reality, neither was it literal in the last supper.

But when the followers of Jesus left Him because the teachig was too hard [jewish law prohibited cannibalism and drinking blood] Jesus did not call them back and explain that he was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically. Likewise the Apostles were asked if they were going to leave too. They did not leave, not because they understood the symbolic meaning but because there was no place to go…Jesus was the Messiah, the Living God…as hard as the saying was, even though they did not fully comprehend, they could not leave because in this hard teaching was the words of eternal life…

Again, how did the early church understand the Eucharist - Body and Blood or merely symbolic? The answer is True Body, True Blood - more presious than Gold, more precious than their lives…

 

[Pax]

The question of the OP really boils down to the existence of the ministerial priesthood vs. the universal priesthood of believers.

I would answer the question this way:

The OT clearly indicates that the Jewish people were a priestly people. Likewise, we know that the ministerial priesthood of the Levites existed within Judaism right along side the general priesthood of the people. Likewise, the OT ministerial priesthood had a High Priest. Likewise, the NT has a High Priest in Jesus.

The OT makes it clear that the Levitical priesthood had duties, responsibilities, authority, and power reserved to the ministerial priesthood. Likewise, the NT church has a ministerial priesthood with powers reserved to it that are not shared by the non-ministerial priesthood of Christian believers.

The OT predicts the coming of Jesus. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently refer to Jesus as the “Branch” of David and they are prophetic in describing Him. Jeremiah makes reference to an unending ministerial priesthood patterned after the Levitical priesthood as it relates to Jesus.

Jeremiah 33:14-18 says:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’ “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever.”

We also see an important prophecy concerning the mass and Eucharist in Malachi 1:11-12 which says:

“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. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.”

It is important to note that there is only one pure offering that has ever been given to God. That offering was Jesus Christ upon the cross. Nevertheless, this prophecy says that in every place from the rising to the setting of the sun this perfect offering will be made. It then refers to the Lord’s table and the food that is upon it. Only the Catholic mass and the Eucharist fit this prophecy. Likewise, such offerings and sacrifices are by definition offered by priests. Moreover, these priests are always of the ministerial priesthood.

There is another pattern in the NT tied to the OT Levitical priesthood. Korah’s rebellion involved the usurpation of the ministerial priesthood.

In Jude 1:10-11 it says:
But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

For someone to perish in Korah’s rebellion in the NT church means that they would have to be attempting to usurp or otherwise abuse the ministerial priesthood. The ministerial priesthood is also attested to through the laying on of hands.

I hope this helps.

 

[fellowChristian]

The post is someone elses question not my own.

But I have been told by Protestants that

“My pastor was ordained.”

Then I ask “By whom?”

The response is usally “I don’t know”

followed by “Does that matter?”

So how can I explain to (not above) them that the pastor has to be able to trace the line back to an Apostle?Otherwise no Eucharist.

The lady in question is non-denominational who believes she is receiving Jesus in communion at her non-denomination.She also believes in the “invisible church” and everyone is part of the body. There is no reason to belong to any “religion”.

How would you answer her.
She is a nurse an educated person.But has no idea about the Catholic Faith. I am spoon feeding her.Alittle at a time.

 

[Montalban]

THAT’s news to me. I always thought our orthodox brothers shared our belief that the bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of christ, not symbolically, not merely supernaturally, not alongSIDE the bread and wine…

You need to know the subtleness of the difference. We believe it’s real body and blood, but the ‘how’ is not defined by us.
Catholics give an attempt to be more precise which is not what we believe in. Thus I said we don’t believe in it *as *Catholics do.

Orthodox wouldn’t go so far as to formulate to such a degree.

 

[Montalban]

where did he say that an ordinary bread and wine transforms into his actual flesh and blood?

1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

St. Paul differentiates between this and some kind of communal meal when he tells you that when you’re hungry -stay at home.

and uh, after the so called transubstantiation, the wafer didnt look, feel & taste any different than your common wafer. (thats why i always say this is a matter of make believe)

What’s the waffer got to do with me?

there is literally real food and literally real drink, both in the catholic sacrament and in the bible last supper. But the flesh & blood isnt literal in reality,

Yes, it is.

Jesus said in John his Body is real food.
John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Then at the last supper he says this is my body. He doesn’t say “This is *like *my body”. And St Paul tells you its not a communal meal.

 

[AgnosTheist]

1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

it doesnt really say that a transformation went into effect. it could easily be an act of communal rememberance of jesus.

Yes, it is.

what I meant was, in reality a transubstantiated host still remains a physical host. no alteration in its chemistry & substance. and eating it does no special effect aside from that feel good feeling that lasts about an hour. so the literal food is not really a literal flesh. its all just in the mind.

 

[inthecloud]

In a Orthodox thread someone was explaining their position of transustanciation. The Orthodox believe in a Real Presence but since the Early Church Fathers could not make their mind on transustanciation ( the main position) or consustanciation (supported by some) on the Real Presence they prefere to call it a mystery and stress there is a Real Presence without bothering to explain how that happened. Only after the Reformation and under pressure from the West the Orthodox choose the ECFs equivalent of transubstanciation.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ i dont understand. how different is orthodox eucharist from roman eucharist? doesnt the orthodox believe that the bread transforms into the actual flesh of jesus?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

what I meant was, in reality a transubstantiated host still remains a physical host. no alteration in its chemistry & substance. and eating it does no special effect aside from that feel good feeling that lasts about an hour. so the literal food is not really a literal flesh. its all just in the mind.

as one currentely researching about communion and Eucharist and I will add totally undecided. I agree here, this part is actually a question in part I have into the apologists, its been 2 wks Im starting to doubt a answer.

Anyway, Im with you here, it technically does not physically change. So no matter what, one is only imagining or believing it to be the actual flesh and blood. And in the defination of it, that makes it symbolic. Which I know everyone hates that word.

And on the circle goes . . .

Im personally starting to wonder that its such a bone of contention, and it shouldnt be. The more important part is remembering what Our Lord did for us. And examining ourselves to be ready. And thats getting buried under semantics.

 

[Shiann]

It was explained to me thusly… (there are a number of threads that go into this in depth so feel free to search them out for a deeper answer).

What makes an apple an apple?
Certainly not the color- if it rotted and was brown not red it would still be an apple right?

Certainly not the taste- if it were cooked and made into sauce it would taste different than raw apple.

So the “accidents” of an apple (including DNA) are not what makes an apple an apple. It is the SUBSTANCE that is apple.

Substance is a philisophical term that refers to what something IS. aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html

When transubstantiation occurs it is the SUBSTANCE not the accidents that change in the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Then I would take it that symbolism is a good term, as in it represents a concept of blood and flesh.

being a symbol isnt a bad thing. Because thats what it is. But how I treat and respect that symbol can mean alot.

I understand that it is His flesh and blood when I look at it, as its symbolic of them. It reminds me. Thats the point of remembering.

Maybe I see things different somehow, maybe I dont need explaination of imagining it turning to actual flesh, I think of it that way anyway.

 

[manualman]

Believe it or not, it takes fairly advanced philosophy to define the word IS.

I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but American culture has a poor grasp on things beyond the immediately tangible. I think this is why so many of us have never really pondered the eucharist.

Clearly, the physical senses perceive no change. Is that so strange? When God himself decided to incarnate into humanity, he chose to be born in a stable, grow up as a workman’s son and hang out with fishermen. There was no aura, glow or magic about Jesus’ physical appearance. It was his SUBSTANCE by which people recognized who he WAS. Why? wouldn’t people have paid more attention if he came as a mighty champion, a noble prince, rippling with muscle, square jaw, deep voice and 15 feet tall? But that wasn’t his plan. He wants us to choose him based on what we can plainly perceive with our reason and hearts, but can also reject if we chose to listen to our more base instincts.

And so it is with the eucharist. If you want to, you can convince yourself that it is nothing. But if you quiet your heart and listen to the scriptures and the voices of our earliest fathers, you know it IS him.

I’m not so sure our Orthodox posters are fairly characterizing the definition of transubstantiation. We don’t claim to know HOW it happens. We merely claim to know WHAT happens. It isn’t bread and water anymore. It isn’t Jesus present IN bread and water, it isn’t a symbolic reminder… It is Jesus. IS. There’s that word again!

I can understand what I am hearing the EO position to be. Cling to that which is revealed and nothing more. I guess it is just a different view of revelation in the west where we believe that man can draw true inferrences from true revelation. Granted its trickier and opens you up to the possibility of making a mistake - unless you have some sort of infallibility protection. OOPS, that’s another topic!