Real Presence and Protestants

[bona_fides_1]

lutheranteach,

Again. One cannot just believe that the a “piece of bread” is the Eucharist to make it the Eucharist. One has to believe what Christ did to make it the bread and wine His REAL body and blood.

And one has to be someone who is a partaker of the apostolic promise – a true disciple commissioned by call of Christ - one recognized both by the Universal Priesthood (the People of God) and by the college of Bishops (the ministerial priesthood) and by the Holy Spirit as “In persona Christi” in the charitable and priestly service to both God and Kingdom of God (The Church).

Mere human belief is insufficient. Where kings might be able to dub their favorites as knights and where college professors might be able to bestow diplomas from divinity schools - no one but God working through the Apostolic Succession can bestow the priestly office and the authority to effect the sacraments.

BF

 

[CoachSTL]

And one has to be someone who is a partaker of the apostolic promise – a true disciple commissioned by call of Christ - one recognized both by the Universal Priesthood (the People of God) and by the college of Bishops (the ministerial priesthood) and by the Holy Spirit as “In persona Christi” in the charitable and priestly service to both God and Kingdom of God (The Church).

Mere human belief is insufficient. Where kings might be able to dub their favorites as knights and where college professors might be able to bestow diplomas from divinity schools - no one but God working through the Apostolic Succession can bestow the priestly office and the authority to effect the sacraments.

BF

Thank you bona fide for the more complete version! Cross the Threshold of Hope Lutheranteacher!

 

[JonNC]

lutheranteach,

Again. One cannot just believe that the a “piece of bread” is the Eucharist to make it the Eucharist. One has to believe what Christ did to make it the bread and wine His REAL body and blood.

This sounds like you are saying here that if the priest does not believe that his actions (speaking the words of institution) along the power of the Holy Spirit bring about the real body and blood of Christ, then it doesn’t happen. Am I misunderstanding?

Jon

 

[bona_fides_1]

This sounds like you are saying here that if the priest does not believe that his actions (speaking the words of institution) along the power of the Holy Spirit bring about the real body and blood of Christ, then it doesn’t happen. Am I misunderstanding?

Jon

This is correct. If the priest has lost his faith in his apostolic authority to effect the bread and wine and no longer believes in Catholic dogmas concerning Eucharist then The Holy Spirit will not honor the priestly petition to effect the sacraments. The epiclesis (“calling down from on high”) is not a magic incantation or anything like that but rather an authoritative invocation of the Holy Spirit. The priest loses His authority to invoke the Holy Spirit if he has lost his faith. While the words are spoken authoritatively they are also spoken in the context of Divine permission which we expect to be denied for cases of lost faith (sadly to the loss of the rest of the congregation - why such a priest must ethically step down and try to restore his faith). As an aside a priest who is not in a state of grace (grave sin) but has the faith in priestly powers and the Eucharist can effect the sacraments since it is the sacerdotal authority of the office and the subscription to the faith (proper intent) and proper matter and form that are essential.

*Implicit Epiclesis
Bless and approve our offering;
make it acceptable to you,
an offering in spirit and in truth.
Let it become for us
the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
your only Son, our Lord.

Pre and post-consecration - 4 optional variations
II: Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,
so that they may become for us
the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

III: And so, Father, we bring you these gifts.
We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit,
that they may become the body and blood
of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

IV: Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings.
Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord
as we celebrate the great mystery
which he left us as an everlasting covenant.

II: May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ
be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

III: Look with favour on your Church’s offering,
and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself.
Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood,
may be filled with his Holy Spirit,
and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

IV: Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church;
and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup
into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.
BF

 

[Mc_Sweeney]

(Edited)

We all know it doesn’t matter what denomination one belongs to. They all each the same truth.

All going the same way? I think not.

Thank God there is one Barque of Peter. Quite simply, if ecclesial communities are not in full Communion with the only Church that Jesus founded and which has as it’s visible Head the successor to St Peter, then they lack the Authority to Consecrate the Host.

I understand the Anglicans lost this Authority during the reign of King Edward V1.

Thank God for His Bride the Church.Thank God for Pope Benedict XV1. Long may he ‘be our Shepherd’.

 

[CoachSTL]

This sounds like you are saying here that if the priest does not believe that his actions (speaking the words of institution) along the power of the Holy Spirit bring about the real body and blood of Christ, then it doesn’t happen. Am I misunderstanding?

Jon

JonNC,

My statement is very clear but I will play along with you.

Agreed. A Catholic priest must believe that his actions, along with the power of the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into Christ’s body and Blood. But there is more.

A Catholic priest, along with all Christians who accepted the ordination of priesthood that Christ established for men. Beginning with the Apostles. One must accept the holy orders of priesthood that Christ established in order for transubstantiation to take place. One cannot just will it to happen.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I’ll have to visit a protestant church due to some company event that’ll be held there (nothing religious, mind) and there is a question I should appreciate an answer to before that.

Luther believed in the Real Presence, Zwingli and Calvin did not but instead claimed consecration to be merely symbolical.
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches even though they don’t believe in it or is transubstantation denied to heretic churches?
I’m trying to figure out whether I should pay the usual deferences while in there.

It’s going to depend on which protestant church you go to. The one I went to was grape juice and what looked like a “chicklet”. There wasn’t much reverance there…but then it was merely symbolic. Now I’m sure you would find something completely different in other protestant churches, such as Lutheran.

 

[Murphs10]

JonNC,

My statement is very clear but I will play along with you.

Agreed. A Catholic priest must believe that his actions, along with the power of the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into Christ’s body and Blood. .

First, JonNC is a very respectful and charitable contributer here at CAF and I doubt he is trying to play games with you.

Second, I heard on Catholic Answers Live that the consecration is not contigent on the state of the priest’s belief during mass. The reasoning was that the sacraments rely on Christ not the individual (properly ordained of course). This may be incorrect, but I was curious if you have the source for this so I can clear up my misunderstanding. Thanks.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Second, I heard on Catholic Answers Live that the consecration is not contigent on the state of the priest’s belief during mass. The reasoning was that the sacraments rely on Christ not the individual (properly ordained of course). This may be incorrect, but I was curious if you have the source for this so I can clear up my misunderstanding. Thanks.

I may have overstated something in my prior post about a priest losing his faith. It DOES NOT MATTER since the priest is acting in the place of Christ and it is CHRIST who performs the consecration even if the priest has his doubts.

There are 4 criteria:

• valid form (the correct formula as approved by the Church)
• valid matter (unadulterated bread and pure grape wine )
• valid Orders (valid ordination to the priesthood)
• valid intent (the intent of the priest to do what the Church intends, i.e. to consecrate the offerings into the Body, Blood Soul and Dvinity of Christ.)

It is intent that is in question in Jon’s question. The priest as long as he INTENDS to do WHAT THE CHURCH INTENDS (that is to affect the Eucharist) that is ALL that matters. But if the priest has publicly stated that he does not believe what the Church intends and states that it is only symbolic then he probably fails this criteria even if he uses the correct words because he has stated that he does not intend to do what the church intends and is merely reciting words with no conviction in that intention.

I personally have only heard of a few cases of invalid matter - where the priest tried to use common leavened bread against all cannon law. That would render the sacraments not in effect.

Hope this clarifies the matter for any confusion I added.

BF

 

[CoachSTL]

First, JonNC is a very respectful and charitable contributer here at CAF and I doubt he is trying to play games with you.

Second, I heard on Catholic Answers Live that the consecration is not contigent on the state of the priest’s belief during mass. The reasoning was that the sacraments rely on Christ not the individual (properly ordained of course). This may be incorrect, but I was curious if you have the source for this so I can clear up my misunderstanding. Thanks.

Murphs10,

I am sorry you feel that I am being disrespectul.

And, I did not say that consecration of the host is contingent upon the priests belief. I said, that in order to be ordained a Catholic priest, he must first believe he must believe that the host can be consecrated. Once ordained, and if he changes his belief during the course of his preisthood, he still can consecrate the host even if he does not believe it. He never loses this power. The same as if a priest stops believing that he can absolve sins. He can still do it, but in order to be ordained, one takes vows which affirm that he believes these things first.

It is JonNC who is saying that the consecration of the host is contingent upon a person’s belief. I am trying to clarify for him that just because one believes that the host can be consecrated, does not mean that he or any other can consecrate a host. One must have been ordained to do so (the Apostles) or ordained through the succession of apostles) the Catholic priesthood.

What part is unclear here? What kind of scource are you referring to?

Also, what do you mean that sacraments “rely” on Christ.

 

[Murphs10]

Thanks Bona Fides! That helps.

Murphs10,

I am sorry you feel that I am being disrespectul.

And, I did not say that consecration of the host is contingent upon the priests belief. I said, that in order to be ordained a Catholic priest, he must first believe he must believe that the host can be consecrated. Once ordained, and if he changes his belief during the course of his preisthood, he still can consecrate the host even if he does not believe it. He never loses this power. The same as if a priest stops believing that he can absolve sins. He can still do it, but in order to be ordained, one takes vows which affirm that he believes these things first.

It is JonNC who is saying that the consecration of the host is contingent upon a person’s belief. I am trying to clarify for him that just because one believes that the host can be consecrated, does not mean that he or any other can consecrate a host. One must have been ordained to do so (the Apostles) or ordained through the succession of apostles) the Catholic priesthood.

What part is unclear here? What kind of scource are you referring to?

Also, what do you mean that sacraments “rely” on Christ.

I don’t feel you were being disrespectful at all. I was just trying to reassure you that Jon engages in honest dialogue. Bone Fides cleared it all up thanks.

As for “rely,” I was referring to the priest acting in persona Christi. I was equating a priest having doubt it the Eucharist, but still being able to consecrate the Bread and Wine with a priest being in sin and still being able to perform his priestly duties because the sacraments do not rely on the worthiness of the priest, but on Christ himself.

 

[Bob4BVM]

David,

The term ‘Real Presence’ is used by Roman Catholics to refer to transubstantiation.
It is susally used in a different sense by other ‘ecclesial communities’ (e.g. Anglican). For example Lutherans understand the 'Real Presence as referring to their doctrine of ‘consubstantiation’.

Catholics can be certain on where the Body and Blood are. I’m not sure they can be certain on where they are not.

‘And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
For he that is not against us is on our part.’ (S. Mark 9:38, 39)

Thank you zdon, good food for thought !

 

[Bbigam]

…The epiclesis (“calling down from on high”) is not a magic incantation or anything like that but rather an authoritative invocation of the Holy Spirit…

Implicit Epiclesis
Bless and approve our offering;
make it acceptable to you,
an offering in spirit and in truth.
Let it become for us
the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
your only Son, our Lord.
…

BF

Good post. To add to your list, in the Roman Canon the Supplices te rogamus is often considered to be an implicit post-Consecration epiclesis or the completion of the Epiclesis that starts in the first text you quoted above (“Bless and approve…”). In this case it is an “ascending Epiclesis” in that we are beseeching that the holy angel take the offerings up to the heavenly altar (as contrasted with the rest which are descending Epiclesis-es asking the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts).

Current English translation of the Supplices te rogamus:

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.

Upcoming much better translation of the same:

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:
command that these gifts be borne
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

So the structure is different but the priest is still beseeching God to do something. A priest who is saying those words but doesn’t mean them because he has lost his faith isn’t actually asking God to do anything, he’s just saying words.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC,

My statement is very clear but I will play along with you.

Agreed. A Catholic priest must believe that his actions, along with the power of the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into Christ’s body and Blood. But there is more.

A Catholic priest, along with all Christians who accepted the ordination of priesthood that Christ established for men. Beginning with the Apostles. One must accept the holy orders of priesthood that Christ established in order for transubstantiation to take place. One cannot just will it to happen.

I promise, I am not playing a game, Coach. It was a sincere question, and I will follow up tomorrow or Wednesday.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Murphs10,

I am sorry you feel that I am being disrespectul.

And, I did not say that consecration of the host is contingent upon the priests belief. I said, that in order to be ordained a Catholic priest, he must first believe he must believe that the host can be consecrated. Once ordained, and if he changes his belief during the course of his preisthood, he still can consecrate the host even if he does not believe it. He never loses this power. The same as if a priest stops believing that he can absolve sins. He can still do it, but in order to be ordained, one takes vows which affirm that he believes these things first.

It is JonNC who is saying that the consecration of the host is contingent upon a person’s belief. I am trying to clarify for him that just because one believes that the host can be consecrated, does not mean that he or any other can consecrate a host. One must have been ordained to do so (the Apostles) or ordained through the succession of apostles) the Catholic priesthood.

This, and what bona fides said, was what I was asking. It sounded like you were saying that it was dependent on the faith of the priest. And the reason I was asking was that the Lutheran Confessions teach that:

Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, **but also by wicked Christians. **

And it was no understanding that the Catholic Church essentially believed the same, and I was trying to confirm. And that this is also true of the priest/pastor who consecrates.
Your post, Coach, sounded different than my understanding of what Catholics teach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I may have overstated something in my prior post about a priest losing his faith. It DOES NOT MATTER since the priest is acting in the place of Christ and it is CHRIST who performs the consecration even if the priest has his doubts.

There are 4 criteria:

• valid form (the correct formula as approved by the Church)
• valid matter (unadulterated bread and pure grape wine )
• valid Orders (valid ordination to the priesthood)
• valid intent (the intent of the priest to do what the Church intends, i.e. to consecrate the offerings into the Body, Blood Soul and Dvinity of Christ.)

It is intent that is in question in Jon’s question. The priest as long as he INTENDS to do WHAT THE CHURCH INTENDS (that is to affect the Eucharist) that is ALL that matters. But if the priest has publicly stated that he does not believe what the Church intends and states that it is only symbolic then he probably fails this criteria even if he uses the correct words because he has stated that he does not intend to do what the church intends and is merely reciting words with no conviction in that intention.

I personally have only heard of a few cases of invalid matter - where the priest tried to use common leavened bread against all cannon law. That would render the sacraments not in effect.

Hope this clarifies the matter for any confusion I added.

BF

Hi BF,
Thanks for this, as that was what I understood.
I would ask additionally, while we generally use unlevened bread, in the tradtiion of the
western Church, is it a contradiction that Rome accepts Orthodox Eucharist as valid , even though they use levened bread?

Jon

 

[bona_fides_1]

Hi BF,
Thanks for this, as that was what I understood.
I would ask additionally, while we generally use unlevened bread, in the tradtiion of the
western Church, is it a contradiction that Rome accepts Orthodox Eucharist as valid , even though they use levened bread?

Jon

It certianly appears as a contradiction doesn’t it?

But let’s look closer. There are three major groupings of Catholic Rites based on the initial apostolic transmission of the faith: the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine (from whence comes Orthodox) derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the** over 20 liturgical Rites **present in the Church today.

There are within the Catholic Church proper eastern Catholic rites that use leavened bread. These reflect the handed down traditions of these rites from their original apostolic origins or else retained some of the practices from their original schismatic break away sects that later reconstituted to the West and were given special indults to continue the practice. Thus unleavened bread remain-valid form/matter WITHIN THESE RITES.

This is the nice thing about Catholicism - it is extremely rich in depth and breadth of tradition and spirituality. Catholics may in general attend any Catholic rite and also with permission or necessity may also attend and receive Orthodox Eucharist – which as you point out retains the Eastern Church tradition of using leavened bread. The Latin Church honors and respects the Orthodox eastern traditions as sacred and holy since this was how they received their rites from their original apostolic tradition handed down through their apostolic succession from an original apostle or as the early Patriarchs permitted and blessed such local practice since it is of the same apostolic intention of the One Faith.

But within the Latin Rite leavened bread is unacceptable (invalid form/matter) for the Latin Rite Priests to consecrate. It would be taken as an act of insubordination to the ecclesial authority and a break of unity of faith. I would have to research if there was a special indult or permission given for emergencies to use leavened bread though (e.g. a natural disaster cutting off supplies of ecclesial unleavened host wafers like during a hurricane). It is however not improper for a Catholic (priest or laity) to receive Eucharist under the appearances/accident of leavened bread that is consecrated by a priest from a rite that was authorized to use leavened bread if received in the context of that rite’s mass (or as a last rites viaticom). It is within that rite proper form/matter.

As an aside, I’d like to also point out that within the Orthodox Churches a rogue bishop or priest who breaks communion (excommunicated explicitly or automatically) with his fellow bishops and/or fellow clergy is considered unable to effect the sacraments. It is my understanding that they hold to a unity principal as being a necessary precondition in order to effect the sacraments or ordain new clergy. This would prevent for example a mentally unstable bishop from passing on his apostolic succession blessing/ordination to women and Protestant or non-Christian faiths. After Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican holy orders null it is alleged that Anglicans may have attempted to regain or reassure their apostolic lineage/authority by commissioning an Orthodox bishop to secretly reestablish their apostolic authority by apostolic blessing/re-ordination. If it was true then it would likely be null given that Orthodox officially only consider their own baptisms valid and the over-ordination attempt would constitute a break of unity outside of a patriarchal oversight and be illicit).

This is my understanding. Hope it helps,

BF

 

[JonNC]

It certianly appears as a contradiction doesn’t it?

But let’s look closer. There are three major groupings of Catholic Rites based on the initial apostolic transmission of the faith: the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine (from whence comes Orthodox) derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the** over 20 liturgical Rites **present in the Church today.

There are within the Catholic Church proper eastern Catholic rites that use leavened bread. These reflect the handed down traditions of these rites from their original apostolic origins or else retained some of the practices from their original schismatic break away sects that later reconstituted to the West and were given special indults to continue the practice. Thus unleavened bread remain-valid form/matter WITHIN THESE RITES.

This is the nice thing about Catholicism - it is extremely rich in depth and breadth of tradition and spirituality. Catholics may in general attend any Catholic rite and also with permission or necessity may also attend and receive Orthodox Eucharist – which as you point out retains the Eastern Church tradition of using leavened bread. The Latin Church honors and respects the Orthodox eastern traditions as sacred and holy since this was how they received their rites from their original apostolic tradition handed down through their apostolic succession from an original apostle or as the early Patriarchs permitted and blessed such local practice since it is of the same apostolic intention of the One Faith.

But within the Latin Rite leavened bread is unacceptable (invalid form/matter) for the Latin Rite Priests to consecrate. It would be taken as an act of insubordination to the ecclesial authority and a break of unity of faith. I would have to research if there was a special indult or permission given for emergencies to use leavened bread though (e.g. a natural disaster cutting off supplies of ecclesial unleavened host wafers like during a hurricane). It is however not improper for a Catholic (priest or laity) to receive Eucharist under the appearances/accident of leavened bread that is consecrated by a priest from a rite that was authorized to use leavened bread if received in the context of that rite’s mass (or as a last rites viaticom). It is within that rite proper form/matter.

As an aside, I’d like to also point out that within the Orthodox Churches a rogue bishop or priest who breaks communion (excommunicated explicitly or automatically) with his fellow bishops and/or fellow clergy is considered unable to effect the sacraments. It is my understanding that they hold to a unity principal as being a necessary precondition in order to effect the sacraments or ordain new clergy. This would prevent for example a mentally unstable bishop from passing on his apostolic succession blessing/ordination to women and Protestant or non-Christian faiths. After Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican holy orders null it is alleged that Anglicans may have attempted to regain or reassure their apostolic lineage/authority by commissioning an Orthodox bishop to secretly reestablish their apostolic authority by apostolic blessing/re-ordination. If it was true then it would likely be null given that Orthodox officially only consider their own baptisms valid and the over-ordination attempt would constitute a break of unity outside of a patriarchal oversight and be illicit).

This is my understanding. Hope it helps,

BF

Thanks, BF, for the information.

Jon