Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[GKC]

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.

And, for Orders, valid subject/recipient.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

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”.

Blessings

Ben,

When you say “original Passover” do you mean the night of the Tenth Plague or the annual remembrance afterwards?

 

[rinnie]

What does your friend believe on the night of the last supper when Jesus said “this is my body”? Does your friend believe the bread actually became the body of Christ?

You are kind of on the same mind track as I am here. Jesus said BEFORE the last supper, unless you eat and drink the flesh of man, there is no life in you. He meant what he said and many scrammed, that is when Judas snapped. When they all took off Jesus did not say hey come back, LET ME EXPLAIN. No he said to Peter do you wanna go also. Peter never said no Lord I got ya, I understand this completely.

Peter knew what we know, as Peter said where would I go? Another wards as many of us have learned through our faith, we don’t have to understand it, as Peter did not. We just have to believe what God said.

How this bread and wine turns into the true body and blood of Christ we do not know, Jesus never told us how he does it, only he does. We don’t always understand the mind of God we only trust and obey.

If Jesus wanted us to know exactly how this is done, he would have stopped those people, but he did not. The human cannot understand Divine. Unless Divine reveals it to humans.

 

[Memaw]

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

Of course that’s your view but a very mistaken one. Ever look into Eucharistic Miracles??? Go to Lanciano, Italy and study that one. (as well as many others all over the world.) God Bless. Memaw

 

[benhur]

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

Hi la,

No one is saying “anyone” can administer rite…straw man…yet it is one end of the spectrum…the other end would be only a righreous priest

Many churches do admonish a clear conscience before God and man before receiving

As to the pecking order,it could be just as orderly and lawful for laity first…I see it not as a law and order thing but of attitude or perspective

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Ben,

When you say “original Passover” do you mean the night of the Tenth Plague or the annual remembrance afterwards?

Hi CH,

I don’t know whichever is correct…lol

I think both were not “sacrificial” as far as an offering up to God for sin.

Blessings

P.s. either way that kind of offering sacrifice has ceased…we do not offer anything up to God for propitiation, but give a thanks and praise sacrifice for His offering of Himself for that.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi la,

No one is saying “anyone” can administer rite…straw man…yet it is one end of the spectrum…the other end would be only a righreous priest

Many churches do admonish a clear conscience before God and man before receiving

As to the pecking order,it could be just as orderly and lawful for laity first…I see it not as a law and order thing but of attitude or perspective

Blessings

Hi LA

No evidence, anywhere of anyone other than the ordained administering Communion. Even these Extraordinary minsters of the Eucharist today(Laity) is a rather new idea that seems to have been a protestant practice that found it’s way into the Catholic Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi CH,

I don’t know whichever is correct…lol

I think both were not “sacrificial” as far as an offering up to God for sin.

Blessings

P.s. either way that kind of offering sacrifice has ceased…we do not offer anything up to God for propitiation, but give a thanks and praise sacrifice for His offering of Himself for that.

When we bring the gifts of bread and wine, we are offering the elements of the meal. They represent nourishment for the body (food and drink), work of the hands (bread), and the joy of celebration (wine). These are humble offerings for one another and God (to make holy). Consider the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They offered Jesus bread (perhaps wine too). They invited Him to stay with them (as we invite Jesus at Communion). He returned the gifts, by appearing through them. He was made known to them and vanished from them simultaneously.

The Passover was a sacrifice, because it required blood. And one had to offer this, and also eat it. That Lamb, it’s blood, and the meal symbolized what was to come through Jesus and His Communion. All who were saved (initially) had to partake. During the journey, He also provided miraculous bread (manna) to sustain them. So the Ark contained the Tablets (Written Word) and Manna (Bread from heaven). And annually, they sacrificed the Lamb for the remembrance rite.

Exodus 12
You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and for your sons for ever.And when you come to the land which theLord*will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service.And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’**you shall say, ‘**It is the sacrifice of theLord’spassover**, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians but spared our houses.’”

We eat the Lamb of God while remembering that he was slain for the sins of the world, and became the eternal Passover sacrifice. The Rite is the service that should be observed forever.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Hi CH,

I don’t know whichever is correct…lol

I think both were not “sacrificial” as far as an offering up to God for sin.

Blessings

P.s. either way that kind of offering sacrifice has ceased…we do not offer anything up to God for propitiation, but give a thanks and praise sacrifice for His offering of Himself for that.

I was just was curious because I know ritually the wine was still part of the Passover meal. Specifically there were four cups, with third known as the “Cup of Blessing.” Whether or not these were part of the original sacrifice in Egypt I’m not sure.

 

[benhur]

Hi LA

No evidence, anywhere of anyone other than the ordained administering Communion. Even these Extraordinary minsters of the Eucharist today(Laity) is a rather new idea that seems to have been a protestant practice that found it’s way into the Catholic Church.

Hi la,

No evidence that it is only ordained either…and what is ordained in the first church ? Breaking of bread was taking place in many, many homes just after Pentecost and daily…must have been a lot of ordained ministers.

Lastly, the original night of the Passover there were no priests , but the head of a family. It is like they were all priests , as Jehovah declared soon or at the beginning of the departure/exodus. Of course sin entered , and Levi stepped in . But then one after the order of Melchizedek stepped in and we are all priests again (apart from presbyters).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I was just was curious because I know ritually the wine was still part of the Passover meal. Specifically there were four cups, with third known as the “Cup of Blessing.” Whether or not these were part of the original sacrifice in Egypt I’m not sure.

yeah,we would have to reread exodus dealing with this.

 

[benhur]

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?

Hi la,

It can be invalid in the spiritual heart. Isn’t this the most important, rather than technicalities in exterior…like the Pharisees and “how many times did you wash the cup?”

Paul addresses "improper “eucharisting”, that deals nothing with who administers, and the only invalidating is the attitude and action of the receiver.

Go burn a US flag while tailgating, and then see if it does not “invalidate” your “pledge of Allegiance” or singing of the national anthem just before kickoff (or the dropping of the puck).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Of course that’s your view but a very mistaken one. Ever look into Eucharistic Miracles??? Go to Lanciano, Italy and study that one. (as well as many others all over the world.) God Bless. Memaw

Hi M,

Understand.

So these miracles, all of them, are because or validate only transubstantiation, and not consubstantiation , or a spiritual reality, even a symbolic reality ? Will Christ not honor His name and shed Blood, that are behind all blessed hosts ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

When we bring the gifts of bread and wine, we are offering the elements of the meal. They represent nourishment for the body (food and drink), work of the hands (bread), and the joy of celebration (wine). These are humble offerings for one another and God (to make holy). Consider the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They offered Jesus bread (perhaps wine too). They invited Him to stay with them (as we invite Jesus at Communion). He returned the gifts, by appearing through them. He was made known to them and vanished from them simultaneously.

The Passover was a sacrifice, because it required blood. And one had to offer this, and also eat it. That Lamb, it’s blood, and the meal symbolized what was to come through Jesus and His Communion. All who were saved (initially) had to partake. During the journey, He also provided miraculous bread (manna) to sustain them. So the Ark contained the Tablets (Written Word) and Manna (Bread from heaven). And annually, they sacrificed the Lamb for the remembrance rite.

Exodus 12
You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and for your sons for ever.And when you come to the land which theLord*will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service.And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’**you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of theLord’spassover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians but spared our houses.’”

We eat the Lamb of God while remembering that he was slain for the sins of the world, and became the eternal Passover sacrifice. The Rite is the service that should be observed forever.

Thank you. Yes the Passover is was a type of “sacrifice”.

We just disagree now how we “eat” the Lamb, and on what we “offer up”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

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

Yes, I spirtually eat the flesh and blood that jesus walked in (and is it that flesh or is it His glorified flesh, that was veiled from us?)

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Susanlo. You said:

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

Very good.

Indeed NT presbyter is appropo, but not because of Jewish sensitivities, but that indeed much of the priestly functions cease, with Calvary. Hence no need for a sacrificial priest (heirus). So the new term for a "leader’ is presbyter, due to function , and the attitude of this new covenant.

Further we are all now heirus priests according to Peter , and can enter the holy of holies…how is that for Jewish sensitivities.

P’s only mention heirus priests because of what CC does to the mass as a sacrificial offering , ala OT, though in an unbloody manner and a representing. He is a “go between” the people and God.

Understand how priest is derivative from presbyter per CC…but for us not using the biblical "presbyter’’* and* the function of CC priest, which appears very Jewish, is what draws discussion.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The laity LACK the ABILITY to institute the Blessed Sacrament.

Hi C,

This is man made rule if I may kindly assert.

It is Petrine teaching and Writ that says we are all priests now, even heirus, and to suggest inability at the altar for even sacrifice is contrary.

Understand the CC teaching that only the apostles and their appointees can "minister’’ , and NOT their disciples. I was taught that a disciple is to follow and learn and finally do whom you are a disciple of. And are we not all disciples, even of Christ Himself ?

I am not tossing aside offices and giftings. Just do not see “the breaking of bread” presiding ability to be so regimented as the CC puts forth, but teaching, healing, prophecy, shepherding (presbyter/bishop) yes.

Again, the original Passover, there were no priests, yet each family leader was the priest, and offered sacrificial lamb. Until sin set in. Then came the division, where “Levi” could only go between. But now Melchizedek came, and again we are even sacrificial priests of Calvary, even in remembrance.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

Hi C,

This is man made rule if I may kindly assert.

It is Petrine teaching and Writ that says we are all priests now, even heirus, and to suggest inability at the altar for even sacrifice is contrary.

Understand the CC teaching that only the apostles and their appointees can "minister’’ , and NOT their disciples. I was taught that a disciple is to follow and learn and finally do whom you are a disciple of. And are we not all disciples, even of Christ Himself ?

I am not tossing aside offices and giftings. Just do not see “the breaking of bread” presiding ability to be so regimented as the CC puts forth, but teaching, healing, prophecy, shepherding (presbyter/bishop) yes.

Again, the original Passover, there were no priests, yet each family leader was the priest, and offered sacrificial lamb. Until sin set in. Then came the division, where “Levi” could only go between. But now Melchizedek came, and again we are even sacrificial priests of Calvary, even in remembrance.

Blessings

From the institution of the priesthood from Christ at the Last Supper, the bishops (and priests which are ordained by bishops) receive the mission and faculty that is the sacred power, to act in persona Christi Capitis. The ordination is from “Do this in memory of me” and the Apostles are the bishops.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

yeah,we would have to reread exodus dealing with this.

Read the Bible? But I’m Catholic :crying: :crying:

Lol

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;14524956]Thank you gabe,

I suppose each writing could be taken on its own.

True benhur, one can take each writing of it’s own author expressing one’s faith in the real presence. But one cannot take away from the ECF’s writing’s, which all prescribe to a change that takes place after the consecration into the real presence in the Eucharist.

No one can change the One True Apostolic Catholic Faith of these ECF’s in the Holy Eucharist.

Take for example St. Ambrose who writes; “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”.

Here is the unchanged faith by St. Augustine who was personally baptized by St. Ambrose. St. Augustine a student of St. Ambrose writes his unchanged apostolic faith in the real presence, "St. Augustine; "That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…"

As for Martyr, he does not describe transubstantiation

.

Let us be clear here benhur; The ECF’s used words to describe a Change in the bread and wine, such as; Transmutation, Sacramental Elements, Transformation, Trans-Elements, Change, Not as common bread, nor common wine to we receive these, Union, composite made by God, Immolation, manifest… are terms used by various ECF’s who are prescribing to a “change” of bread and wine into the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist. The ECF’s are all in agreement that this substantial change takes place in the mysteries of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I agree with you, Justin Martyr does not use the word transubstantiation, but his faith in the real presence of the Eucharist, that a change has taken place here; “Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]…” This “Change” which all the ECF’s prescribe to from their personal faith in the Eucharist takes place.

Although the ECF’s descriptive “Change” in the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, never reaches the status of doctrine that defeats all heresies and heretics.

Transubstantiation will come later, to confirm and solidify all of the ECF’s terminology of a “Substantial Change” to the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. If? you place Transubstantiation in place of the ECF’s descriptive Change of bread and wine, as I listed above, transubstantiation only confirms and holds to their faith in the real presence without disturbing the ECF’s faith in the Eucharist and unifies the whole Catholic Faith for all ages.

Transubstantiation defeats all heresies and heretics for all ages, past, present and future time, who come against the real presence in the Eucharist.

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

Yes, by Justin Martyr reflecting on the Eucharist as a “Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” only confirms his faith in the real presence. “For not as common bread and common wine do we receive these, which is blessed by the prayer of His Word…”

benhur, common bread and common wine which only symbolizes a past event will not suffice a “sacrifice” pleasing unto God.

Here is Justin Martyr description of the Mass that is celebrated today unchanged in substance, for both the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Word, parenthesis mine;

(Liturgy of the Eucharist 100-165 a.d)
"When the prayers and thanksgiving are completed, all the people present call out their consent, saying ‘Amen!’ ‘Amen’ in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’ After the president has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus [see John 6: 53-56].

(Liturgy of the Word, 100-165 a.d)The apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which we called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My Body’ [Lk 22:19; Mt 26:26; Mk 14: 22: 1 Cor 11: 23-24]. And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks, He said, ‘This is my Blood’ [Lk 22:20; Mt 26: 27-28; Mk 14:24; 1 Cor 11: 25]. And He imparted this to them only. The evil demons, however, have passed on its imitation in the mysteries of Mithra [pagan cult]. **For as you know or are able to learn, bread and a cup of water together with certain incantations are used in imitation to the mystic rites." **

Peace be with you