Jesus shares His divine authority with priests

[georgemiller]

Is it correct to state that in the sacraments such as confession and the Eucharist Jesus shares His divine authority with priests in order for such things to be accomplished?

I know that without a priest sacramental confession and the Mass Eucharist cannot be accomplish. As such, is Jesus actually sharing His divine authority with priests for these things to be done or only using prists as instruments of His Will and way?

 

[JerryZ]

We are told in Sacred Scripture that “to Jesus, all power and authority has been given on Heaven and Earth”

He gave authority to the Apostles to carry on His ministry taking the “good news” (Gospel) to the end of the Earth, to make disciples of all men. Also he gave the authority to HIS Apostles to forgive and retain sins.

Obviously this authority either has to be transmitted to the successors of the Apostles OR they would have to live forever in order to continue forgiving or retaining the sins of the followers of Christ! Right?

Otherwise it would mean that Jesus did not anticipate what happened AFTER the original Apostles died.
Hence this “authority” needs to be able to be transmitted in some manner.
Also the breaking of the bread which is traceable back to the original Apostles was given by Jesus Himself.
And so on and so forth. Hope this helps.

…

 

[Gorgias]

Is it correct to state that in the sacraments such as confession and the Eucharist Jesus shares His divine authority with priests in order for such things to be accomplished?

I know that without a priest sacramental confession and the Mass Eucharist cannot be accomplish. As such, is Jesus actually sharing His divine authority with priests for these things to be done or only using prists as instruments of His Will and way?

My understanding is that it’s not a ‘sharing’, per se, but rather, a ‘grant of proxy’ or a ‘representation’. That is, in Reconciliation, it is still Jesus who forgives sins – but He assures us that those whose sins are forgiven [by priests] are likewise forgiven by Him. It is certainly the action of the priest, but the forgiveness – ultimately – is Christ’s.

In the case of the Eucharist, it is subtly different: Jesus commands the apostles to “do this in memory of me”, but in the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist, the priest calls down the Holy Spirit (in the epiclesis) so that the consecration may occur. The priest stands “in persona Christi capitis” – that is, he represents Christ – and thereby confects the Eucharist (see CCC #1548).

 

[georgemiller]

Thank you for those very informative responses, thank you very much. My purpose in asking the question as I did was because I am writing to a Protestant friend and I did not want to incorrectly state how the priests and sacraments are conveyed. I guess my additional question now is, can you suggest a better or more accurate alternative way to say what I originally proposed and that is,
" Jesus shares His divine authority with priests"? Thanks again for your support.

 

[TimothyH]

When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matthew 9:8)

-Tim-

 

[Gorgias]

When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matthew 9:8)

Erm… this doesn’t prove your case. The “men” being referenced here… is a reference to Jesus – who already has divine authority. The implication of this verse is that the crowds are mistaken – Jesus hasn’t been given divine authority… He possesses it Himself.

 

[TimothyH]

Erm… this doesn’t prove your case. The “men” being referenced here… is a reference to Jesus – who already has divine authority. The implication of this verse is that the crowds are mistaken – Jesus hasn’t been given divine authority… He possesses it Himself.

The word men is plural. Here it is in the NAB.

When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. (Matthew 9:8)

Also see

*And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. (Luke 9:1)

Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you. (Luke 10:19)*

Paul tells us that the authority of the Apostles was given them by the Lord.

*For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame. (2 Corinthians 10:8)

I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down. (2 Corinthians 13:10)*

-Tim-

 

[InThePew]

Thank you for those very informative responses, thank you very much. My purpose in asking the question as I did was because I am writing to a Protestant friend and I did not want to incorrectly state how the priests and sacraments are conveyed. I guess my additional question now is, can you suggest a better or more accurate alternative way to say what I originally proposed and that is,
" Jesus shares His divine authority with priests"? Thanks again for your support.

The priest stands *in persona Christi *- in the person (or place) of Christ - so in other words, they are doing these things on behalf of Christ himself. I don’t think I would describe it as Christ sharing his divine authority but more as him authorising others to act on his behalf.

 

[Gorgias]

The word men is plural.

I’m aware of that. The reference is clear, though – they’re responding to Jesus’ actions and his alone. Look at verse 6 – who’s authority is Jesus referring to? His own.

The crowd is amazed that such authority has been given to humans (in general).

Also see

And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. (Luke 9:1)
​

Different context. It’s even different than the sacramental question being asked in this thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it correct to state that in the sacraments such as confession and the Eucharist Jesus shares His divine authority with priests in order for such things to be accomplished?

I know that without a priest sacramental confession and the Mass Eucharist cannot be accomplish. As such, is Jesus actually sharing His divine authority with priests for these things to be done or only using prists as instruments of His Will and way?

It’s a good start, however…

It is not “correct” (since that’s the word from your original question) but only because either (a) the statement itself is too broad by addressing different sacraments at the same time or (b) you’re using the word authority where other words would be more accurate.

Here’s what I mean:

First of all, keep in mind the 3-fold ministry of Christ as Priest (sanctifying & offering the Sacrifice), Prophet (teaching) and King (governing). First, all baptized persons participate in this 3-fold ministry of Christ, and second, some (ordained priests) participate in a special way that goes beyond that (and varies in substance, not just degree).

In your two examples, Eucharist and Confession the ability of the priest to accomplish these things arises from different aspects of Ordination.

The Eucharist is not about having authority, but instead it’s about the priest having the New Testament Priesthood–that is, the ability to offer the Holy Sacrifice. (Remember: priest, prophet & king. This is the “priest” part). The word “authority” would not really apply (unless we want to get overly philosophical or delve too far into linguistic history) with regard to the Eucharist because the Eucharist is not an act of governance.

Confession, on the other hand, is mostly about the priest exercising the ministry of Christ the King, governing. God forgives absolutely (directly, and on His own authority) while the priest forgives ministerially (acting in the person of Christ and as His representative). The priest absolves as the direct representative of the Church. (Remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church.) Here, the word authority would apply.

What I’m trying to convey here is that one needs to look at each sacrament separately because each one will have a different answer.

 

[georgemiller]

Father David, thank you so very much for your clarity on this issue. Anyway I can get in contact with you one on one?

 

[Gorgias]

The Eucharist is not about having authority, but instead it’s about the priest having the New Testament Priesthood… The word “authority” would not really apply (unless we want to get overly philosophical or delve too far into linguistic history) with regard to the Eucharist because the Eucharist is not an act of governance.

I took the OP to mean not that the priest has authority over someone or even over something, but rather, has been given the authority to confect the sacrament.