When did the apostles become priests?

[anthony022071]

This is a continuation of an argument on the thread entitled:
“Why are some rejecting the cup?”

Some people think that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper,because the Church teaches that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders at that event.

I have to disagree with this,because the apostles had not received the Holy Spirit,the authority to bind and loosen sins,or the commission to preach the Resurrection and to baptize. And they did not have the accomplished facts of the Cross and Resurrection to believe in and preach about;so they could not fully understand the significance of the Eucharist either.

At the Last Supper,the apostles were being taught what they must do as priests;but they were not priests in their own right.
They became priests after the Resurrection,when Christ breathed the Spirit upon them.

There is a difference between Christ instituting the priesthood at the Last Supper,and Christ making the apostles into priests.
The relationship between the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the Last Supper has to do with Christ being the High Priest after the order of Melchezedek,who brought out bread and wine to Abram;
it is not about Christ making the apostles into priests at the Last Supper.

At the Last Supper,Christ founded the priesthood upon himself. He is the beginning of the priesthood,with the apostles learning from him,but not fully comprehending.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

anthony,

Thank you for making a new thread! (and benedictgal for suggesting it).

If I may point out for those who are thinking of posting on this thread in response to anthony – note that he accepts that at the last supper Christ **instituted the sacrament of priesthood. **

Therefore any arguments you put forth must either:

a) show anthony that Christ ALSO ordained the Apostles

or

b) show anthony that instituting the priesthood necessarily means that the apostles were ordained at that time and that Christ was not the only priest at that table.
There are many sources that talk about Christ instituting the priesthood at the last supper. But those sources without a) or b) won’t do you much good, since anthony already accepts that.

VC

 

[guanophore]

anthony,

Thank you for making a new thread! (and benedictgal for suggesting it).

If I may point out for those who are thinking of posting on this thread in response to anthony – note that he accepts that at the last supper Christ **instituted the sacrament of priesthood. **

Therefore any arguments you put forth must either:

a) show anthony that Christ ALSO ordained the Apostles

or

b) show anthony that instituting the priesthood necessarily means that the apostles were ordained at that time and that Christ was not the only priest at that table.
There are many sources that talk about Christ instituting the priesthood at the last supper. But those sources without a) or b) won’t do you much good, since anthony already accepts that.

VC

It may be that the ordination was cumulative. Jesus clearly gave them instructions and empowered them at the last supper, then after His resurrection, breathed upon them, but it was still some time after that (47 days?) that he told them to “wait” for the coming of the HS, at which time they were enabled to serve.

 

[TMC]

Since this discussing has changed threads, I’ll repost my question here:

What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.

 

[anthony022071]

Since this discussing has changed threads, I’ll repost my question here:

What possible difference does it make when the Apostles became priests? I suppose it may be an interesting bit of historical trivia, but does it really matter enough to argue about? The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Pentacost – all pretty big events in their lives and ours. Arguing over which one resulted in a change in their title seems a little silly, frankly.

This was my response on the other thread:

It seems silly to me too. But the notion that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper doesn’t make logical or scriptural or doctrinal sense. A priest is consecrated as such with the Holy Spirit,and he believes in and preaches the Resurrection,and he has the authority to baptize. The apostles did not have those qualifications at that time.

 

[Brendan]

This was my response on the other thread:

It seems silly to me too. But the notion that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper doesn’t make logical or scriptural or doctrinal sense.

It makes abosule sense. Christ commanded the Apostles to “Do This in Memory of Me”, He gave them the Authority to change bread and wine in the Eucharist. That is the very heart of what it means to be a priest.

A priest is consecrated as such with the Holy Spirit,

As the Apostles were at several points prior. Pentecost is not the only infusion of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost is the Institution of Confirmation, which is a seperate Sacrament to Holy Orders. Mary was present at Pentecost, does that mean that she is a priest and a bishop too?

and he believes in and preaches the Resurrection,and he has the authority to baptize. The apostles did not have those qualifications at that time.

A Priest is the New Covenant is required to believe what Christ has revealed, WHEN and HOW Christ reviels it. No more, no less.

And yes, the Apostles already had the Authority to Baptize

John 3:22-26

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew* over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."*

John 4:1-2

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples

Are you now going to claim that Baptism does not impart the Holy Spirit?

 

[anthony022071]

It makes abosule sense. Christ commanded the Apostles to “Do This in Memory of Me”, He gave them the Authority to change bread and wine in the Eucharist. That is the very heart of what it means to be a priest.

When Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”,he was referring to a time when he would no longer be with them. It was not an admission that the apostles were already priests. There was no need for them to celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Christ so long as he was in the flesh,and thus there was no need for priests other than Christ.

As the Apostles were at several points prior. Pentecost is not the only infusion of the Holy Spirit.

I know that. The apostles received the Spirit on the day of the resurrection.

Pentecost is the Institution of Confirmation, which is a seperate Sacrament to Holy Orders. Mary was present at Pentecost, does that mean that she is a priest and a bishop too?

She wasn’t one of the apostles,and it is not written that the Spirit came upon her at Pentecost.

A Priest is the New Covenant is required to believe what Christ has revealed, WHEN and HOW Christ reviels it. No more, no less.

A priest is required to believe in the Eucharist he is celebrating. He has to believe in the Resurrection. Christ did not build his Church on the sand of doubters.

And yes, the Apostles already had the Authority to Baptize

John 3:22-26

That was John the Baptist.

John 4:1-2

They were giving the Jewish baptism of repentance,like John the Baptist,not the Christian baptism.

Are you now going to claim that Baptism does not impart the Holy Spirit?

I never claimed that.

 

[anthony022071]

A Priest is the New Covenant is required to believe what Christ has revealed, WHEN and HOW Christ reviels it. No more, no less.

Edit:

A priest is required to believe in the Eucharist he is celebrating. He has to believe in the Cross and Resurrection – the events that are celebrated in the Eucharist.

The apostles could not proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ with the Eucharist before those events happened.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” (1 Cor 11:26)

 

[dacoobob]

On a related note, how many angels do you think can dance on the head of a pin? I ask only for information.

 

[JimG]

Conferring the power of the priesthood through ordination does not require as a prior condition that the recipient have full knowledge of all that entails.

Currently, the Church prepares candidates for ordination for up to eight years, but that is not a necessary condition. There have been periods in the history of the Church when much less preparation was required, and (consequently more guidance needed during their ministry). But the sacrament is effective regardless. We can’t know all the ways in which Christ may have prepared the apostles.

 

[anthony022071]

Conferring the power of the priesthood through ordination does not require as a prior condition that the recipient have full knowledge of all that entails.

Currently, the Church prepares candidates for ordination for up to eight years, but that is not a necessary condition. There have been periods in the history of the Church when much less preparation was required, and (consequently more guidance needed during their ministry). But the sacrament is effective regardless. We can’t know all the ways in which Christ may have prepared the apostles.

But in the case of the apostles,they did not even have the Cross and the Resurrection to believe in and to preach. Those events had to have happened first before there could be a Christian priesthood with something to preach and a Eucharist to celebrate in memory of Christ.

 

[Brendan]

John 3:22-26

That was John the Baptist.

Read it again. you are very mistaken!

They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

They are taking ot John about the the man who John testified, and that man ( Christ) is baptizing people and every one is going to him.

John recognizes that the Baptism of Christ is superior and tells his own disciples that he must lessen as Christ is greater.

Christ is doing the Baptism. And later, Christ’s disciples are also Baptizing.

And yes this IS the Baptism of the New Covenant, as Christ instituted THAT Sacrament with His own Baptism.

What had not happend yet was the Great Commission, where Christ tells his disciples to Baptize all Nations ( not just Jews)

BTW have you discussed this with your pastor yet?

We’d like to hear his response.

 

[Brendan]

Conferring the power of the priesthood through ordination does not require as a prior condition that the recipient have full knowledge of all that entails. .

That is correct. The Sacrament of Holy Orders could be validly onferred on a new born, as long as the new born is male and has been Baptized.’

 

[guanophore]

This was my response on the other thread:

It seems silly to me too. But the notion that the apostles became priests at the Last Supper doesn’t make logical or scriptural or doctrinal sense. A priest is consecrated as such with the Holy Spirit,

Well, clearly they were able to walk in the Power of the HS, even though it was before Pentecost

Matt 10:6-8
7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

Luke 10:9
9 heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Luke 10:17
17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!”

and he believes in and preaches the Resurrection,

They preached what they had been taught thus far, which was the Kingdom.

and he has the authority to baptize. The apostles did not have those qualifications at that time.

I think this was still the baptism of repentance, since the HS had not yet been poured out, but he did train them in baptisms, and clearly they had His authority to do so.

" the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)" John 4:1-3

His disciples baptizing was considered the same as Him doing it Himself.

 

[JimG]

But in the case of the apostles,they did not even have the Cross and the Resurrection to believe in and to preach. Those events had to have happened first before there could be a Christian priesthood with something to preach and a Eucharist to celebrate in memory of Christ.

"had to have happened first’? Not necessarily. Remember that the Last Supper itself was the first Mass, making present the sacrifice of Christ, which had not (temporally) happened at that point. The Eucharist transcends time. So do the sacraments. They had at least three years of preparation with the best Teacher available. They weren’t asked to go out to preach the completed gospel (altho they had preached before) until Pentecost, but ontologically, the sacrament of Orders could surely have been conferred at the Last Supper. It seems the proper time to confer it: It was essentially the last act of Jesus’ earthly life with his Apostles.

 

[anthony022071]

John 3:22-26

Read it again. you are very mistaken!

My mistake. I thought you were mistaking John the Apostle for John the Baptist,who is mentioned as baptising in that passage.

They are taking ot John about the the man who John testified, and that man ( Christ) is baptizing people and every one is going to him.

John recognizes that the Baptism of Christ is superior and tells his own disciples that he must lessen as Christ is greater.

John does not say that the water baptism of Jesus is superior. The baptism of Christ is that of fire – the Holy Spirit,who had not yet come to the disciples.
Luke 3,16: "I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

 

[anthony022071]

John 3:22-26

Christ is doing the Baptism. And later, Christ’s disciples are also Baptizing.

And yes this IS the Baptism of the New Covenant, as Christ instituted THAT Sacrament with His own Baptism.

No,that was the Jewish baptism of repentence.
John 3:25: “And there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews, concerning purification.”
The apostles hid not even confessed that Jesus was the Son of God,so they could not have been baptizing in the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Spirit.
The Christian baptism has its origin with the death of Christ.

Catechism,1225: In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a “Baptism” with which he had to be baptized.[22] The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.[23] From then on, it is possible “to be born of water and the Spirit”[24] in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.[25]

Baptism in the Church
1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”[26]
.

 

[anthony022071]

"had to have happened first’? Not necessarily. Remember that the Last Supper itself was the first Mass, making present the sacrifice of Christ, which had not (temporally) happened at that point. The Eucharist transcends time.

There’s a difference between the Eucharist being given by Jesus to the apostles,and the apostles celebrating the Eucharist in memory of Jesus. The apostles could not celebrate the Eucharist in memory of Jesus while he was still with them. A priest stands in the person of Christ the Head,who is no longer on earth. While Jesus was in the flesh,there could be no other priests than he.

So do the sacraments. They had at least three years of preparation with the best Teacher available. They weren’t asked to go out to preach the completed gospel (altho they had preached before) until Pentecost,

The only Christian gospel they could have preached would have to have been the completed one – the good news of the Resurrection. Before that,all they could preach was repentance and the coming of the Kingdom of God,like John the Baptist did.

but ontologically, the sacrament of Orders could surely have been conferred at the Last Supper. It seems the proper time to confer it: It was essentially the last act of Jesus’ earthly life with his Apostles.

I’m not arguing against the Sacrament of Holy Orders having been instituted at the Last Supper,I’m arguing against the idea that the apostles became priests at that time. As I stated in the first post,there’s a difference between the institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper,and the apostles being made into priests.
The beginning of the priesthood consisted of Christ being High Priest after the order of Melchezedek,who brought out bread and wine to Abram. That does not mean that the apostles became priests at that time. They were still apprentices.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Anthony,

A priest stands in the person of Christ the Head,who is no longer on earth. While Jesus was in the flesh,there could be no other priests than he.

Can you please clarify? Doesn’t Jesus always remain in the flesh? What happens to priests who die (and go to Heaven) – do they remain priests? After all they are with Christ in Heaven.

What are your thoughts?
VC

 

[lak611]

Anthony,

Can you please clarify? Doesn’t Jesus always will remain in the flesh? What happens to priests who die – do they remain priests? After all they are with Christ in Heaven.

What are your thoughts?
VC

After priests die, they are still priests. However, we do not know if they are in heaven. If they committed mortal sin that was unconfessed, they could be in hell. Or they could be in purgatory if they have not made satisfaction for the temporal results of their sins. Priests, like any other people, are not OSAS. Catholic teaching is the same for them as it it for any other persons.