Scriptural proof and explanation of Holy Orders, please

[spoiltvictorian]

I’ll just ask this straight up. Holy Orders is a hot issue between Lutherans and Catholics, if I understand it correctly. But first, to make sure I understand it correctly, Catholics, would you please help me by answering these questions?

What, exactly, are Holy Orders?

How was this sacrament developed/defined/declared over time?

Where do we read about it in the Bible? I understand that all seven are in Holy Scripture. This is the only one I can’t identify.

Has it changed since Vatican II?

Thanks so much. I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

 

[ralphinal]

See if the New Advent article helps

newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm

Basically, Holy Orders represents the sacrament by which men go from being lay members of the Church to being Bishops. The deaconate and priesthood are part of the process.

A man with a vocation goes through the training (which has changed through the years to the system we have today). As part of the process, he is first ordained a transitional deacon, then priest. Should the Holy Spirit then move him farther, he is ordained Bishop. There is another form of deacon. That is the permanent deacon, where a married man with another job takes on a role to assist the Church. It is ordained but does not lead to the priesthood in the same way.

 

[FCEGM]

You might find this article helpful:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a31.htm

 

[Eucharisted]

Priesthood of the Old Covenant: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pandold_en.html
Priesthood of the New Covenant: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pnewt_en.html

 

[Erich]

I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

Hmm and I thought Matthew 16:18 says that Peter is the rock

Here’s another link which should prove helpful in understanding apostolic succession from the Catholic perspective: By What Authority?

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Thanks, everyone. I’ll read these articles. But maybe somebody could explain the…sacramental part of it? I mean, we receive Grace in Baptism, Communion, Forgiveness of Sins, etc. But how do we receive it by becoming a priest or a bishop?

 

[Reuben_J]

Holy Orders is the sacrament through which men receive the power and grace to perform the sacred duties of bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church. Christ Himself selected and ordained the first bishops, the Apostles. They then, following the will of Christ, consecrated other men as bishops and ordained priests and deacons.

The sacrament produces in the soul of the recipient an increase of sanctifying grace, sacramental graces to help him in his ministry, a sacramental character, and supernatural powers (especially, the power to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the power te forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance). Holy Orders is a sacrament of the living and can be received only once. Only a bishop can confer this Sacrament. 'l’he cere- a mony for this Sacrament is long and a beautiful, but the imposition of hands and the accompanying prayer (mat- ii ter and form) are the essential part of the rite.

By divine institution some among Christ’s faithful are, through the sacrament of order, marked with an indelible character and are thus constituted sacred ministers; thereby they are consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they fulfill, in the person of Christ the Head, the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling, and so they nourish the people of God.

The orders are the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate.

 

[JonNC]

I’ll just ask this straight up. Holy Orders is a hot issue between Lutherans and Catholics, if I understand it correctly. But first, to make sure I understand it correctly, Catholics, would you please help me by answering these questions?

What, exactly, are Holy Orders?

How was this sacrament developed/defined/declared over time?

Where do we read about it in the Bible? I understand that all seven are in Holy Scripture. This is the only one I can’t identify.

Has it changed since Vatican II?

Thanks so much. I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

If I may quote the Apology to the Augsburg Confession:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. **Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. **

There are Lutheran synods in northern Europe that have maintained apostolic succession, and there are Lutherans clergy here and abroad that have tried to recover it through Anglican (dutch touch) orders. And then there are some who rigidly oppose it, regardless of what the Apology says.

As for the sacramental part, my dad’s ordination was certainly a means of grace for him, and indirectly everyone he touched pastorally through the years. But we have a more narrow view of sacraments, based on Christ’s institution, His Word of promise joined to the visible element; and by which we receive the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ.
That said, the Lutheran view is narrow but not dogmatic. That’s why some Lutherans view Confession and Absolution as a sacrament.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

There are Lutheran synods in northern Europe that have maintained apostolic succession, …

Jon, from Catholics viewpoint it is impossible for Lutherans to claim apostolic succession. They have to justify from what authority they get it from. Martin Luther was excommunicated and like all excommunicated priests he could not ordain a person into priesthood. Beside ordinations can only be performed by Bishops. It is not my intention here to dispute the legality of Lutheran priests but thought I just point this out.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, from Catholics viewpoint it is impossible for Lutherans to claim apostolic succession. They have to justify from what authority they get it from. Martin Luther was excommunicated and like all excommunicated priests he could not ordain a person into priesthood. Beside ordinations can only be performed by Bishops. It is not my intention here to dispute the legality of Lutheran priests but thought I just point this out.

God bless.

Hi Reuben,
Some of the Bishops in Scandinavia, though not always voluntarily, became Lutheran when their countries adopted Lutheranism as a national religion, so in those national churches where this took place, succession can be traced. Though I’m not certain of details, these Lutheran orders have never been declared invalid by Rome in the way Anglican orders have, though certainly Rome would say they are not licit.

As you can tell, I’m one Lutheran who thinks A.S. is something of importance, and I have some issues with the congregational polity of my own Missouri Synod.

I very much appreciate your last sentence, and the way you presented your view.
Jon

 

[Tomster]

I’ll just ask this straight up. Holy Orders is a hot issue between Lutherans and Catholics, if I understand it correctly. But first, to make sure I understand it correctly, Catholics, would you please help me by answering these questions?

What, exactly, are Holy Orders?

How was this sacrament developed/defined/declared over time?

Where do we read about it in the Bible? I understand that all seven are in Holy Scripture. This is the only one I can’t identify.

Has it changed since Vatican II?

Thanks so much. I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

Holy Orders is the sacrament by which priests of the New Alliance are appointed. Christ, by right of nature and by divine vocation, is the High Priest of the New Testament. But, because He was to withdraw His visible presence and wanted to render visible and perpetual (as human nature requires) the application of His saving work, from the first days of His public life Jesus selected disciples whom He lovingly trained at His school. To crown, as it were, this divine training, He instituted the sacrifice of the Mass and, by a supernatural investiture expressed in the words: “Do this in commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), He transmitted to the Apostles the priestly power of renewing the unbloody offering in perpetual commemoration of the bloody immolation of Calvary, thereby constituting them representatives of men to God. On the day of the Resurrection, and on that of the Ascension, He conferred on them the power of remitting sins (John 20:21-23) and the threfold power of teaching, ministry, and government (Matthew 28:19-20), thus establishing them representatives of God with men.

Just as He constituted a hierarchy of jurisdiction by conferring on Peter (John 21:15-18) primacy over the other Apostles, Jesus, in the days He passed with them after His Resurrection speaking about God’s kingdom, must have given opportune instructions for a parallel hierarchy of orders, for, immediately after Pentecost we find this hierarchy constituted in three grades: the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate (orders of divine institution; Council of Trent, session 23, Canon 6).

cont.

 

[Tomster]

I’ll just ask this straight up. Holy Orders is a hot issue between Lutherans and Catholics, if I understand it correctly. But first, to make sure I understand it correctly, Catholics, would you please help me by answering these questions?

What, exactly, are Holy Orders?

How was this sacrament developed/defined/declared over time?

Where do we read about it in the Bible? I understand that all seven are in Holy Scripture. This is the only one I can’t identify.

Has it changed since Vatican II?

Thanks so much. I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

The conferring of orders of divine origin was always reserved to the bishop. In conferring orders on the Apostles Christ did not use any sign, but right after the Ascension we see the action appear which remains the essential rite in the collation of major orders: the laying on of hands together with a prayer (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:13; 2 Timothy 1:6).

The effects are the character and grace. The most perfect participation of the priesthood of Christ, because it confers immediate power over the body of Christ in the act of making it present through the words of transubstantiation and of offering it in acceptable sacrifice to the Father. He who can act on the Head has also the right to exercise influence over the body, and hence the priest who consecrates the physical body of Christ acquires a direct power over the Mystical Body, which he teaches, sanctifies, and governs. The greatest right to grace, for in transmitting the most perfect participation of the priestly office it demands a correspondingly more intense reproduction of the feeling of victim in the priest’s soul, according to the priest-victim equation of the New Economy - “priest of his own victim and victim of his priesthood”. Then again, since the character makes the priest the living ciborium of the Divinity, it demands that he be adorned with the most precious jewels of the rarest virtues… The conferring of a pre-eminent position in the ecclesiastical society, because it makes of the priest the leader, the father, and the teacher of the people.

The sanctifying grace, which this sacrament increases ex opere operato, is like the final touch that assimilates the soul to Christ. To it is added the sacramental grace which involves an increase of all those virtues and gifts which we may call professional: the gift of piety and the virtue of religion, for the worthy offering of the sacrifice; the gift of wisdom to instruct; and the virtue of prudence to govern.

The Council of Trent defends this doctrine against the denials of the reformers (session 23). Three great documents on the dignity of the priesthood were promulgated: "Exhortatio ad clerum catholicum (1908) by Pope St. Pius X, and the encyclicals, Ad catholici sacerdoti (1935), by Pope Pius XI, and Menti nostrae, by Pope Pius XII.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Jon, that is interesting. I don’t quite understand the “dutch touch” though. Anglican orders were already valid, so why did they need the Old Catholics? And if some Lutheran orders are valid why does Rome say our Communion isn’t real?

 

[crazzeto]

Jon, that is interesting. I don’t quite understand the “dutch touch” though. Anglican orders were already valid, so why did they need the Old Catholics? And if some Lutheran orders are valid why does Rome say our Communion isn’t real?

Anglican orders are no longer valid, because they tried to “userp” apostolic succession wrongly. They tried seperating from the Universal Church, then claim that they in fact had an unbroken line to the Apostles. This was quite wrong, you can’t break off then claim you have an unbroken line.

In the case of these Lutherans, the bishops referred to are those who had no choice (or at least didn’t choose martyrdome).

 

[Tomster]

Anglican orders are no longer valid, because they tried to “userp” apostolic succession wrongly. They tried seperating from the Universal Church, then claim that they in fact had an unbroken line to the Apostles. This was quite wrong, you can’t break off then claim you have an unbroken line.

In the case of these Lutherans, the bishops referred to are those who had no choice (or at least didn’t choose martyrdome).

Thank you very much.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Anglican orders are no longer valid, because they tried to “userp” apostolic succession wrongly. They tried seperating from the Universal Church, then claim that they in fact had an unbroken line to the Apostles. This was quite wrong, you can’t break off then claim you have an unbroken line.

In the case of these Lutherans, the bishops referred to are those who had no choice (or at least didn’t choose martyrdome).

I hear Catholics on this forum say Anglican orders are valid quite often. Are they wrong or am I confusing “invalid” with another term?

 

[ralphinal]

I hear Catholics on this forum say Anglican orders are valid quite often. Are they wrong or am I confusing “invalid” with another term?

There are a few that have valid orders. Otherwise, from the Catholic point of view, they do not.

I am not an expert on what makes that small group valid. You should also know that some Anglicans consider themselves to be “Catholic” but not in union with Rome

 

[PJM]

=spoiltvictorian;5920116]I’ll just ask this straight up. Holy Orders is a hot issue between Lutherans and Catholics, if I understand it correctly. But first, to make sure I understand it correctly, Catholics, would you please help me by answering these questions?

What, exactly, are Holy Orders?

Holy Orders is one of the seven Sacraments Instituted By Christ Himself. It’s origin goes back before Abraham.
**
Gen.14: [18] And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. ** [Later Christ would be called a High Priest in the order of [similar to] Melchizedk who was too a KING and a High Priest who offered “bread and wine and Transubstanuated it into His very Self.” So Christ Himself is the First Priest! Thou are [now] Peter [ROCK] and as I am the cornerstone you Peter are the Foundation of My New Church!

Aaron and the Levites were “set asside” by Yahweh to serve as the “priest-class.”
**
Matt.16 Verses 15 to 19:** [15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

**Matt.28: [19] **“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

**1 Cor. 11: 23 **“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. **Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
**
Eph. 2: [18] for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,[SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,[SINGULAR] Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple [SINGULAR] in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."
**
John.20 Verses 19 to 23 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” **

How was this sacrament developed/defined/declared over time?

It “was” as it “is”. What changed were qualifications, definiation of authority and duties. teteriorial boundries and the like. The the hireachy as a result of growth, and modification brought on by abuses. But was was then still is today in its basic form just a Christ Himself set it up. Mass 1,850 years ago was very similar, with the same major components that we still use today. Said by priest then and now:thumbsup:

Where do we read about it in the Bible? I understand that all seven are in Holy Scripture. This is the only one I can’t identify.

Each and every reference to the Eucharist: Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21, John 6: 40-68, and Paul 1 Cor. 11:23-29, all references to sins and there forgiveness, all references to evangualization, all references to miracles and healings, all, each and averyone refer to the Catholic Priesthood.

Has it changed since Vatican II?

No, not really. What Vatican II produced was a completely unfounded, unauthorized “right to personal desent” which these folks will have to answer to God for there clear disobedience of WWJD? But even through this debacle, Christ Bride, His Church survives

Thanks so much. I feel like I am clearing rocks from a field. Right now, this is the rock.

Hope this helps?

Love an prayers,
Pat

 

[spoiltvictorian]

OK, I’ve read the articles and I have some more questions.

1. It seems that Lutheran orders are invalid, according to the CC, because a Catholic bishop didn’t lay hands on them. Do I understand that right?
2. According to the CC, is it the Words of Instution or the fact that an Ordered priest is present that brings Christ in the Flesh to Communion?
3. I read somewhere that Catholic lay may, when no priest is available, take communion. Might that mean that churches without orders, if valid orders are required for communion, still have an exception?

Thanks.

 

[ralphinal]

OK, I’ve read the articles and I have some more questions.

1. It seems that Lutheran orders are invalid, according to the CC, because a Catholic bishop didn’t lay hands on them. Do I understand that right?

Yes, though it should be said that an Orthodox bishop can validly ordain, too.

1. According to the CC, is it the Words of Instution or the fact that an Ordered priest is present that brings Christ in the Flesh to Communion?

C. Both A and B. It is the fact that a odered priest uses the proper form over the proper matter. A priest cannot hold up bread and say “JEsus is here” and it becomes the Flesh nor can a lay person perform the mass.

1. I read somewhere that Catholic lay may, when no priest is available, take communion. Might that mean that churches without orders, if valid orders are required for communion, still have an exception?

Thanks.

Not sure what you mean. There is a provision for communion services, but those use already concecrated Hosts.