Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[susanlo]

ben, I promise you all the Early Church Fathers and all canonized Saints and Martyrs were all unanimous in the real presence in the Eucharist.

Here is St. Ignatius when he describes his apostolic faith of the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist.
**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH **(c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST*, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Please see here for more info on the unanimous faith in the real presence since apostolic times (biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num34.htm)

These quotes from Ignatius do not show a conversion of the elements. The first quote from the Letter to the Romans is not about the Eucharist at all. It is about his desire for the church in Rome to not intervene to prevent his martyrdom in Rome. He wants to die and be present with Jesus, not have the Eucharist. The second quote from the Letter to the Philadephians says nothing about the nature of the Eucharistic elements. The third quote from the Letter to the Smyrnaeans is referring to Gnostics who denied that Jesus had a body and was truly crucified at all. They abstained from the Eucharist because they didn’t believe in Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. It was not a dispute as to whether the bread and wine represented or converted into Jesus’ body and blood, but as to whether He ever had a body.
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Gabriel of 12;14522867:

Please read more of sunsalo’s source; JND Kelly on the early Church Fathers:

JND Kelly’s Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist…It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper…**Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ’s body…Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]…**So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5]…The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

I think the part of the confusion is the way JND Kelly uses the term realism. He doesn’t mean an actual conversion and considers a symbolic understanding to fit under the term ‘realism’ as well. I also think the term Real Presence is troublesome because people seem to use it to mean very different things.

 

[benhur]

Are you saying the OT passover did not posses Transubstantiation? Of course not!

Hi rc,

Agreed. Remembrance , making the past present, thru the rite, does not require transubstantiation, as making the last Supper "present’’ again does not either.

Again, trans per my view is not required, per understanding of the metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual words of Christ. Understand the CC requires trans due to viewing the Lord’s words as literal.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben

Just for lurker/reader clarification, this is what happens in a Catholic Mass. It’s a representation of what already happened. Not a re-sacrifice.

Pax

yes , thank you. Something John or Jesus did not explain to the departing followers/disciples.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

.
Correction; Here are some canonized Christian Saints who record their apostolic faith in a real substantial presence in the Eucharist, ‘please note’, that some of these Saints record that a change has taken place from the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I included Tertullian in the list for you. Please note that Tertullian is not listed as a canonized Saint.
I hope you and other’s here take the time to read how a true Christian of the apostolic faith expressed His Catholic faith in the real presence.

St. John Chrysostom; “For His Word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. His Word has never failed, but our senses in most things go wrong”…"For as bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains nowhere appear, they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction, so we are co-joined both with each other and with Christ.
"He also co-mingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very deed makes us His body…what then ought not he to exceed in purity that has the benefit of this SACRIFICE?

St. Ambrose; “Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are TRANSFORMED into the flesh and the blood”… Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, How is it that you assert that i receive the Body of Christ? “Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed”.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem; “For in the figure of bread is given to you His body, and in the figure of wine His Blood, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become Partakers of the divine nature…and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ, and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of the Christ…after the invocation the bread BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST”

St. Gregory of Nyssa; “He gives these gifts by virtue of benediction through which He TRANS-ELEMENTS the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing”

St. John of Damascus; …“but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood…So the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (heaven forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself…but if some persons called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration”…

St. Augustine; "That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…

St. Justin Martyr; “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these…So likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”…

St. Cyprian; “Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread he lives forever, as it is manifest…receive the Eucharist”…

St. Hilary; “it is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and blood”…

St. Leo the Great; “you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith”…

TERTULLIAN; “up to the present time, Christ has not disdained the water which the Creator made… nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS HIS OWN PROPER BODY, thus requiring in his very sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator”…

St. Clement of Alexandria; “The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist…for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically”…

St. Gregory the Great; “He is again immolated for us in the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice. Where His body is eaten, there His flesh is distributed among the people for their salvation”…

St. John Chrysostom; “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon earth”?

Your quote by Tertullian only deals with the nature of Christ’s humanity (flesh) that defeats his contemporaries who are denying that Christ had a human nature. Tertullian from your quote is not specifically addressing the real presence in the Eucharist as you have misinterpreted Tertullian’s apology on the human nature of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

Thank you gabe,

I suppose each writing could be taken on its own.

As for Martyr, he does not describe transubstantiation . I have heard his "transmutation’ is referred to the bread and wine nourishing our body,…that is thru digestion. He is staying clear from suggesting we eat His flesh and drink His blood, for that is what he is defending against, and would be illegal and subject to a death sentence. He makes it clear it is religious symbolism, that they eat bread and wine mixed with water, representing His blood and body. That is how and others view his words understanding.

He further suggests it is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

thanks , took a look.

Understand. Transubstantiation is not needed to make a communion be true to the Greek of Hebrew word.

Communion and it’s transubstantiation does not come from the word “remembrance”. Remembrance is what we are told to do during this Supper, since we don’t “see” transubstantiation with the senses. We call to mind and heart what Jesus did, and does through the power of His “coming in the flesh”.

That is, it is something else, certainly an unprecedented view of them. Certainly trans brings Calvary and the Lord to be “present” per CC teaching.

Amen

Just that a spiritual or symbolic view do also…they are true to the greek/hebrew remembrance etc , that we are commanded to do.

The symbolic view requires a host of rejections of Catholic Teaching. Likewise it rejects Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Remembering Jesus and sharing a meal may have beneficial rewards, but when taken as the equivalent as the Lord’s Supper, it becomes a hindrance to the Holy Spirit. He calls all Christians to one table.

If I may be nitpicky, you twice mentioned that we offer the bread and wine, as in offering up to God. Not sure that is part of original Passover , or the last supper. Totally understand it to be a CC thought. I believe the rite requires a blessing over the food,and from there we offer up praises for God offering His son for us. It is a reverse offering , for which we give remembrance and praise, and hence the greek word for that -“eucharist”.

The “offering of bread and wine” is what we provide for the Lord to make spiritual. Bread and wine are elements of nourishment for the body, but Jesus and His Spirit are food for the soul. He has made His flesh and blood the communion meal of the New Covenant.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Agreed. Remembrance , making the past present, thru the rite, does not require transubstantiation, as making the last Supper "present’’ again does not either.

Again, trans per my view is not required, per understanding of the metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual words of Christ. Understand the CC requires trans due to viewing the Lord’s words as literal.

Once again, ben… you speak as though you’re a Bishop.

 

[Duane1966]

As for Martyr, he does not describe transubstantiation . I have heard his "transmutation’ is referred to the bread and wine nourishing our body,…that is thru digestion. He is staying clear from suggesting we eat His flesh and drink His blood, for that is what he is defending against, and would be illegal and subject to a death sentence. He makes it clear it is religious symbolism, that they eat bread and wine mixed with water, representing His blood and body. That is how and others view his words understanding.

He further suggests it is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Blessings

Wrong again. Here is what the eminent Protestant Kelly has to say about Justin Martyr:

Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]…So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5]…The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

And in that quote of Justin’s, he says we eat the flesh and blood of Jesus that he walked in.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

These quotes from Ignatius do not show a conversion of the elements. The first quote from the Letter to the Romans is not about the Eucharist at all. It is about his desire for the church in Rome to not intervene to prevent his martyrdom in Rome. He wants to die and be present with Jesus, not have the Eucharist. The second quote from the Letter to the Philadephians says nothing about the nature of the Eucharistic elements. The third quote from the Letter to the Smyrnaeans is referring to Gnostics who denied that Jesus had a body and was truly crucified at all. They abstained from the Eucharist because they didn’t believe in Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. It was not a dispute as to whether the bread and wine represented or converted into Jesus’ body and blood, but as to whether He ever had a body.
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

I think the part of the confusion is the way JND Kelly uses the term realism. He doesn’t mean an actual conversion and considers a symbolic understanding to fit under the term ‘realism’ as well. I also think the term Real Presence is troublesome because people seem to use it to mean very different things.

Hi Susan.

Did you read chapter 8 of Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and*** valid***.

Did you catch that? A Bishop or priest needs to be there for administration of Sacraments. W/o those guys, it is not only improper, it is invalid.

But why would he say such a thing? As a practicing Catholic this makes perfect sense. It’s because if you or I tried to administer sacraments, it wouldn’t be valid because we aren’t ordained. And if we aren’t ordained, we don’t have the faculties to consecrate elements. And if we cant consecrate elements, no change takes place.

Another point I would make here, is that if the Eucharist is insignificant, why is he writing about it in the first place?

Thanks.

 

[rcwitness]

Is it fair to say that the “symbolic Communion” is focused on the minimal/foundational common ground that each Christian believes, while the “Transubstantiational Communion” focuses on the fullness/complete common belief that each Christian believes?

 

[benhur]

Hi Susan.

Did you read chapter 8 of Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans?

Did you catch that? A Bishop or priest needs to be there for administration of Sacraments. W/o those guys, it is not only improper, it is invalid.

But why would he say such a thing? As a practicing Catholic this makes perfect sense. It’s because if you or I tried to administer sacraments, it wouldn’t be valid because we aren’t ordained. And if we aren’t ordained, we don’t have the faculties to consecrate elements. And if we cant consecrate elements, no change takes place.

Another point I would make here, is that if the Eucharist is insignificant, why is he writing about it in the first place?

Thanks.

hi la

I think it is prejudicial to justify a sacrificial priesthood from Ignatius bere.Any “appointee” can preside. For sure it can include presbyters, but it is not limited to them.

Martyr makes no distinction other than whoever officiated he calls them a “president”’.Of course we all agree it should be a responsible personrespecting the solemnity yet joyous rite.

Ignatius also goes on tangent that that there is pecking order in the receiving, as in bishop first, then presbyters then deacons then laity…doesn’t seem to imitate Christ to me, who always served others first, as any good shepherd would.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Is it fair to say that the “symbolic Communion” is focused on the minimal/foundational common ground that each Christian believes, while the “Transubstantiational Communion” focuses on the fullness/complete common belief that each Christian believes?

Hi rc,

Fair from any Catholic point of view

Symboli view if accurate is then just spot on, no mi or max, and to what detriment…observable that is ?

The detriment of C view if wrong is the unnecessary establishment of the sacrificial priesthood, and limiting the access to holy communion…

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

hi la

I think it is prejudicial to justify a sacrificial priesthood from Ignatius bere.Any “appointee” can preside. For sure it can include presbyters, but it is not limited to them.

Martyr makes no distinction other than whoever officiated he calls them a “president”’.Of course we all agree it should be a responsible personrespecting the solemnity yet joyous rite.

Ignatius also goes on tangent that that there is pecking order in the receiving, as in bishop first, then presbyters then deacons then laity…doesn’t seem to imitate Christ to me, who always served others first, as any good shepherd would.

Blessings

Hi Ben

The Didache makes it clear that if you aren’t a baptized Christian, you, yourself, cant even ***receive ***it. So the idea that anyone can preside seems a bit far fetched. There has always been processes and lawfulness involved.

Maybe a little off topic but I must ask, when you are in a reformed service and they pass those crackers and grape juice around, is there any confessing of sins or questioning of beliefs? Does anyone ask you if you are a baptized believer in conformity with the Church? How far we have removed ourselves from the early Church. Credit to the Lutherans and Anglicans for at least practicing closed Communion which is historical Christianity.

And Ignatius came up under John and is about as early a Father as we have. He died in 108 AD and the last book of the NT was written probably 95AD. I don’t have any problem with pecking orders for Communion as it is more about order, not elevation of individuals. If you read the letters he writes, it’s clear he is preaching against schism and wild Christians coming up with their own ideas that were contrary to Apostolic teaching. So submission to the Bishops was important then and is still important today, imo.

Pax

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Fair from any Catholic point of view

Symboli view if accurate is then just spot on, no mi or max, and to what detriment…observable that is ?

The detriment of C view if wrong is the unnecessary establishment of the sacrificial priesthood, and limiting the access to holy communion…

Blessings

But is that really accurate?

Symbolic communions require nothing more than a “Baptized Believer”. You don’t need to be Confirmed by a Bishop, who oversees a large jurisdiction and is accountable to a larger visible authority. Though, I don’t consider it a burden to be Confirmed in the faith. It is a Rite and privilege of accepting Jesus’ Baptismal grace/life.

Transubstantiation means that what (more like Who) we are receiving is not open to various and oppositional teachings/beliefs. We acknowledge that we are receiving a body of Scripture (73 books), we acknowledge we are receiving a body of Teaching (Catechism and lawful canons), and we acknowledge we are receiving the very substance of whom incarnated as a human and was made subject to the weakness we are in chains to. Yet, for our ransom, was obedient to death as a sacrifice and is now standing as if slain on an altar which transcends time and space but also connected with time and space. Transubstantiation demands us to first be reconciled and “confess our sins in Church” or we should refrain from His holy gift. And transubstantiation means, we should have a clear conscience that is in conformity to a universal, visible, apostolic, leadership.

 

[MartinJordan]

“Without priestly vocations “the Church is weakened, because a Church without the Eucharist doesn’t have strength: the Church makes the Eucharist, but the Eucharist also makes the Church. The problem of vocations is a serious problem.” - Pope Francis

MJ

 

[susanlo]

Hi Susan.

Did you read chapter 8 of Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans?

Did you catch that? A Bishop or priest needs to be there for administration of Sacraments. W/o those guys, it is not only improper, it is invalid.

But why would he say such a thing? As a practicing Catholic this makes perfect sense. It’s because if you or I tried to administer sacraments, it wouldn’t be valid because we aren’t ordained. And if we aren’t ordained, we don’t have the faculties to consecrate elements. And if we cant consecrate elements, no change takes place.

Another point I would make here, is that if the Eucharist is insignificant, why is he writing about it in the first place?

Thanks.

"Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

He actually didn’t write about a bishop or priest. (The Greek word for priest, ‘hiereus,’ was not yet used as a term for a Christian leader). He wrote “the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it.” We really don’t know what qualifications were involved in becoming “entrusted.”

But, he also wrote that it is not lawful to baptize without a bishop. According to Catholic teaching, a baptism performed with proper intent and with the Trinitarian formula is a valid baptism even if performed by a non-baptized person and with no clergy present. So either Ignatius was incorrect in writing this - or Catholic teaching is wrong. Or maybe we shouldn’t read into this that he is saying that a baptism or Eucharist could not ever possibly be valid without a bishop or appointee, but because of the confusion in the community with the Gnostics described throughout this letter, it is safer to trust the appointed and educated Christian leader in this local church.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

"Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

He actually didn’t write about a bishop or priest. (The Greek word for priest, ‘hiereus,’ was not yet used as a term for a Christian leader). He wrote “the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it.” We really don’t know what qualifications were involved in becoming “entrusted.”

But, he also wrote that it is not lawful to baptize without a bishop. According to Catholic teaching, a baptism performed with proper intent and with the Trinitarian formula is a valid baptism even if performed by a non-baptized person and with no clergy present. So either Ignatius was incorrect in writing this - or Catholic teaching is wrong. Or maybe we shouldn’t read into this that he is saying that a baptism or Eucharist could not ever possibly be valid without a bishop or appointee, but because of the confusion in the community with the Gnostics described throughout this letter, it is safer to trust the appointed and educated Christian leader in this local church.

Hi susan.

You said:

These quotes from Ignatius do not show a conversion of the elements. .

So let’s put who can consecrate and who cant aside for a moment. (BTW, it was called presbyter back then, same thing as a modern day priest)

How can the Eucharist ever be invalid in the first place if it’s merely symbolic to begin with and no change taking place after it is prayed over? Why even touch on this subject unless there is something to touch on? The reformed position is, this is bread and it still remains bread no matter what is said or who says it.

 

[Vico]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica PART 3. Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament, Article 5. Whether Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place?:

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Article 4), the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.

H.H. Pope Paul VI
CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION

1. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

 

[Cathoholic]

Susanlo. You said:

He actually didn’t write about a bishop or priest. (The Greek word for priest, ‘hiereus,’ was not yet used as a term for a Christian leader).

Actually St. Ignatius, a Catholic Bishop, WAS writing about ministerial Priests.

The early Christian Church cannot use ‘hiereus’ or ‘Cohen’ for ‘Priest’ just as they couldn’t in the New Testament either. At least not without constantly further clarifying (as is in Hebrew 7 concerning Jesus).

Why? Because an “iereus” to Jewish ears, is a priesthood based upon flesh and blood lineage. A Levitical lineage.

Remember much of New Testament Christianity and early Church Christianity was of Jewish ethnicity.

Since Jewish people think of an hiereus or “iereus” as of Levitical genealogy, it just wouldn’t make sense to call priests Kohenim or “iereuses”.

That’s WHY St. Paul who was not described as an iereus can be ‘priesting’ or “hierourgounta” (Romans 15:16) in the sense of iereus, but he is NOT proclaimed be a ‘priest’ in the sense of iereus (St. Paul was a Benjaminite as Philippians 3:5 tells us, not a Levite).

The Jewish mindset at the time (and even now) is that unless you are from the Tribe of LEVI and not JUDAH, further clarification is in order.

Jesus is a Jew (Romans 1:3) and NOT a Levite.

Jesus’ high Priesthood (Hebrews tells us) is NOT on the order of flesh and blood (such as a mere Levitical priesthood was).

The Priesthood we have in the New Covenant is only a SHARE or a PARTICIPATION or a koinania in the ONE Priesthood of Jesus.

Varying degrees of “share” to be sure (Jesus is the only Priest, Bishops, Presbyters, and the priesthood of all the Baptized faithful have differing shares in that ONE Priesthood of Christ).

To preach early Priests IN Jesus as an iereus (without immediate clarification) would offend the sensibilities of the Jews and hurt their ability to see the fullness of Judaism—Christianity.

Calling priests “hiereuses” or “Cohens” (Kohenim) is fine for an audience of hearers such as you or I, but in the New Testament (and early church) you needed to exercise caution with that term.

Otherwise you are forced to “clarify” every time you call priests an iereus.

Fr. Pacwa himself discusses this phenomenon and how he himself experienced this when he got rebuked by his Jewish Hebrew instructor. She asked the class to give a brief vignette about themselves. Fr. Pacwa identified himself and an iereus or Cohen. She immediately reprimanded him telling him he could NOT be an iereus unless he was of the Tribe of Levi. Since she would characterize Fr. Pacwa as a “Gentile”, she said he couldn’t POSSIBLY be an iereus.

He points out by using this term he immediately offended Jewish sensibilities and had to backtrack.

As Hebrews says, with a change in priesthood comes a change in law.

In the New Covenant, we have a change in BOTH priesthood and law.

A different title for the ministerial Priests is appropriate. **Presbyteroi is appropriate terminology for ministerial “priests”. **

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

According to Catholic teaching, a baptism performed with proper intent and with the Trinitarian formula is a valid baptism even if performed by a non-baptized person and with no clergy present. So either Ignatius was incorrect in writing this - or Catholic teaching is wrong.

This is a partial truth Susanlo.

Laity STILL are NOT to Baptize. We MAY in cases of emergency.

With confecting the Holy Eucharist, it doesn’t matter if its an emergency or not. The laity LACK the ABILITY to institute the Blessed Sacrament.

This inability, includes Protestant ministers who like laity in general do NOT have the share in Christ’s Priesthood to the degree that they can transsubstantiate bread and wine.

BOTH concepts you raised are true.

But your objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the Church.

In order to impart ANY Sacrament you need . . . .

• Valid form
• Valid matter
• Valid intent
• Valid minister of the Sacrament

In Baptism laity are valid but not licit unless it is an emergency.
In the Holy Eucharist, only ministerial Priests (Bishops and Priests) are valid.

 

[Cathoholic]

This is a partial truth Susanlo.

Laity STILL are NOT to Baptize. We MAY in cases of emergency.

With confecting the Holy Eucharist, it doesn’t matter if its an emergency or not. The laity LACK the ABILITY to institute the Blessed Sacrament.

This inability, includes Protestant ministers who like laity in general do NOT have the share in Christ’s Priesthood to the degree that they can transsubstantiate bread and wine.

BOTH concepts you raised are true.

But your objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the Church.

In order to impart ANY Sacrament you need . . . .

• Valid form
• Valid matter
• Valid intent
• Valid minister of the Sacrament

In Baptism laity are valid but not licit unless it is an emergency.
In the Holy Eucharist, only ministerial Priests (Bishops and Priests) are valid.