Why cant Protestant ministers consecrate the bread to

[Hisalone]

There isn’t a contradiction between believing the Bible and believing the Pope (or Church) - we are told IN the Bible that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth, and we are told NOT to privately interpret the Bible, AND we are told to take all disputes (including theological ones) to the Church for resolution. Luther must have read this, so he was in error to see things in terms of a contradiction, and in error to not rely on Christ’s promise to preserve the Church against the gates of Hell. He had no need or authority to take himself out of communion with it.

And ALL churches THINK they are born again and all THINK the Holy Spirit dwells in them. Yet the Protestant denominations not only teach contradictory things from each other - they teach contradiction even within the one denomination (eg the Episcopalians) and even on essential issues like the reality of the Resurrection, the nature of the Eucharist and so on.

Clearly there is only ONE truth about Christ’s Resurrection (either it really and literally happened or it didn’t) and ONE truth about the nature of the Eucharist (either it IS literally, transubstantially as we Catholics say, His body and blood and NOT bread and wine, or it is something else), ONE truth about homosexuality or artificial birth control (either they are wrong or not).

To pretend that people who believe so many different things on these issues can be part of His ONE body or privy to His ONE truth is ludicrous. God is not, neither is the Holy Spirit, the author of the confusion we see in the Protestant Churches. It is, however, the author of the consistent 2,000 year teachings of the Catholic.

It sounds good but it is simply not true.
Back to te OP/
So there is no reason that a Protestant minister cant consecrate the bread and wine. All you have given me is that you beleive that one must be in apostolic succession. Where did you get that?
Judas was in apostlic succession and a lot of good it did him, You guys tend to make up things as you go along te claim that te Catholic Curch is the same as 2000 years ago is simply ludicrous.
There are several denominations that claim apostolic succession te Catholic Churc is but one.

 

[stbruno]

It sounds good but it is simply not true.
Back to te OP/
So there is no reason that a Protestant minister cant consecrate the bread and wine. All you have given me is that you beleive that one must be in apostolic succession. Where did you get that?
Judas was in apostlic succession and a lot of good it did him, You guys tend to make up things as you go along te claim that te Catholic Curch is the same as 2000 years ago is simply ludicrous.
There are several denominations that claim apostolic succession te Catholic Churc is but one./quote

Trouble is that Judas broke away. He threw away his succession by his betrayal. That’s very clear. If he had made another choice, to reconcile as Peter did when he denied Jesus three times, he would be back in the fold. However, he made a choice that condemned himself.

 

[cameron_lansing]

the body of Jesus and the wine to the blood of Jesus?
I see nowhere in the rules that it cant be done

As to your original question, see canon 900. This is of course, a “rule” of the Catholic Church but we believe it arises from divine law. If you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, of course, we don’t expect that you would accept this teaching either. Nor would our understanding of apostolic succession mean too much to you either.

By the way, what do Protestant ministers respond when you ask them this question of yours?

Perhaps you might be willing to share their responses with us. I suspect we would all find them interesting.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Oh, by the way, if anybody’s interested.
The bible has these references:

Apostolic authority and Teaching:
1 Cor.11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Tim 1:13; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:14; 4:2; 2 Thes 3:6; Luke 6:12-16; Matt 28:18-20; John 20:21-23

Apostolic succession:
Mk 3:13-15; Matt 10:5ff; Matt 18:18; Matt 28:18-20; Matt 16:16-18;John 21:15-19; 2 Tim 1:6; Ti 1:4-6; Acts 1:21-26

Comments from early Church leaders:

" Blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples." St. Clement of Alexandria (190-210 AD)

" (Peter) The great foundation of the church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the church." Origen early 3rd Cent.

" If someone does not hold fast to the unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the church?" Cyprian, African bishop & martyr, 251 AD

" I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your Blessednes, that is, with the Chair of Peter. I know that this is the Rock on which the church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane."
St, Jerome, Translator of the Latin Vulgate. Wrote in a letter to Pope Damasus, late 4th century.

" No one can doubt…that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and foundation of the Cathoilc Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always He lives in his successors exercising judgment."
Council of Ephesus - 431 A.D.

 

[Atreyu]

Before he broke with Rome, assuming he believed in transubstantiation (or at least didn’t deny it) and intended to do as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do when they consecrate, then yes.

At the point where he ceased to believe and ceased to be in communion with the Apostolic churches then no.

You’re wrong here Lily. After Luther broke with Rome, so long as he still intended to turn the bread into the body of Christ, then the bread did indeed transubstantiate. It was not licit, but it was valid. Exactly the same as the SSPX or the Orthodox.

Actually, if he rejected his orders then I suppose it would no longer be valid either, but I’m not sure about this…

 

[SIA]

For the most part, Protestants do NOT believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord.

That’s one reason.

For another reason, NO Protestant minister stands in the Apostolic Succession. (In fact, this is another teaching Protestants reject.) Only such Priests and Bishops aare given the charism (foir lack of a better word) to accomplish this.

You assume way too much. Isn’t this the same exact thing you accuse Protestants of when it comes to Catholic teaching? You are wrong about no Protestants being within Apostolic Succession as well. I don’t know, maybe you don’t consider Anglicans Protestant.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

You’re wrong here Lily. After Luther broke with Rome, so long as he still intended to turn the bread into the body of Christ, then the bread did indeed transubstantiate. It was not licit, but it was valid. Exactly the same as the SSPX or the Orthodox.

Actually, if he rejected his orders then I suppose it would no longer be valid either, but I’m not sure about this…

Once a priest, always a priest (“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisadek”). So he could always validly consecrate the bread and wine.

 

[LilyM]

You’re wrong here Lily. After Luther broke with Rome, so long as he still intended to turn the bread into the body of Christ, then the bread did indeed transubstantiate. It was not licit, but it was valid. Exactly the same as the SSPX or the Orthodox.

Actually, if he rejected his orders then I suppose it would no longer be valid either, but I’m not sure about this…

But he explicitly intended to CONsubstantiate and not TRANsubstantiate - he didn’t believe in or at least admit the possibility (as the Orthodox do) of transubstantiation.

I wouldn’t think intending to consubstantiate would be close enough to ‘what the Church intends’ for the consecration to be valid, but then I’m willing to admit I may be wrong.

 

[SIA]

But he explicitly intended to CONsubstantiate and not TRANsubstantiate - he didn’t believe in or at least admit the possibility (as the Orthodox do) of transubstantiation.

I wouldn’t think intending to consubstantiate would be close enough to ‘what the Church intends’ for the consecration to be valid, but then I’m willing to admit I may be wrong.

Luther didn’t believe that a priest or anyone for that matter posessed the ability to magically change the substance of the elements. he believed that Christ became present within the elements (cosubstantiation). This is actually supported by Scripture.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It sounds good but it is simply not true.
Back to te OP/
So there is no reason that a Protestant minister cant consecrate the bread and wine. **All you have given me is that you beleive that one must be in apostolic succession. Where did you get that? **
Judas was in apostlic succession and a lot of good it did him, You guys tend to make up things as you go along te claim that te Catholic Curch is the same as 2000 years ago is simply ludicrous.
There are several denominations that claim apostolic succession te Catholic Churc is but one.

Jesus gave the apostles the power to consecrate the bread and wine (even Judas but he didn’t live long enough to do it). The apostles, by laying on of hands, passed this power to others. By the laying on of hands, the apostles also appointed bishops to succeed to their office and those bishops also lay their hands on others to ordain them as priests. This is what apostolic succession means.

You have to admit that Jesus began the church with the apostles. When the Holy Spirit came on them at Pentecost, they did God’s will in establishing the church. Of course it didn’t look exactly the same as today any more than an acorn looks like an oak tree.

When you read about the structure of the church in the writings of the Early Church Fathers you see that it was essential that each local church have a bishop who could trace his ordination directly back to an apostle or to a bishop ordained by an apostle.

It’s pretty easy on the internet to find the writings of people like Clement, Justin, and Irenaeus to support this. Some of the other posters can surely give you links.

There are a few other churches (not ‘denominations’) who also have apostolic succession and who are not in union with the pope. But these don’t include protestant denominations. (At this point I’m not addressing the fact that some Anglicans claim apostolic succession). Therefore the power to consecrate the bread and wine simply hasn’t been passed down to Protestant ministers.

 

[LilyM]

Luther didn’t believe that a priest or anyone for that matter posessed the ability to magically change the substance of the elements. he believed that Christ became present within the elements (cosubstantiation). This is actually supported by Scripture.

There’s no magic about anything God does - and He can do anything, including, through the agency of a priest, changing the substance of the bread and wine.

Furthermore He also changes OUR substance with that same bread and wine, making us part of His body and giving us a share in His grace and His eternal life in a way we never could have if we didn’t receive it. :yup: :getholy:

 

[duskyjewel]

For the most part, Protestants do NOT believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Says who?

Dude… says THEM! Read the doctrines of just about any protestant church and they reject transubstantiation. It was one of the major battles of the Reformation! After Mary I reinstituted the Catholic Church in England, then died, Elizabeth I reestablished the Anglican Church. During the confusing transition, one of her ministers elevated the Host during the service. That was the moment in a Catholic Mass when transubstantiation was believed to occur, and doing it was the symbol of belief in the doctrine. Elizabeth was so offended by that, because one of the cruxes of her difference with Catholics was REJECTING transubstatiation, that she closed the shutters on the personal “closet” where she sat in her chapel, so as not to have to witness it. When she had the influence to win a vote in Parliament as to the structure of the church, she took back most of the Edwardian prayer book, which forbade elevation of the Host.

Before you come here throwing barbs at Catholics, why don’t you actually get to be conversant with the concepts you’re talking about? Never mind there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations… you’ll have to pick a specific one, or at least class, to discuss.

But the answers you got so far suffice perfectly. Protestant ministers don’t believe in transubstantiation, don’t intend to do it, and don’t have the authority to do so from valid apostolic succession. So that’s why they can’t be the instruments of God for that miracle.

 

[vocatio]

So did Luter.

That is true.
In Luthers final days right before he died.
He went to confession.
His last prayer was to the Blessed Mother.
And He receivedthe Eucharist.
He was still an ordained priest as were many of his fellow dissenters. You are following in Luther’s footsteps then. Dissenting it seems against you own faith from birth. There is one thing being a born Protestant but to truly be protesting possess something much more sinster…even if it is not you intent. You have cognitively chosen to walk away from the faith Christ established. I’ve been praying for you brother. I hope and pray that you realize you error one day like I did. Would you leave Peter because of Judas?

Lutherans no longer have the real presence from what I’ve learned. They like the Anglicans/Episcopalians changed the ordination from what I know. And therefore the Church does not recognize their ordinations as true holy orders. However, the Orhtodox do have valid sacraments and that is the main difference. Had you gone to the Orhtodox you would have had valid sacraments in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox priests I know believe the same from what I understand. I was considering becoming an Orthodox priest on my journey home.

No need to flare up your new Protestant faith beleif system to defend or attack. I’m thinking about starting another faith revealing thread. You my brother are Catholic whether you accept it or not. You have far too much to learn and the too much pride preventing your heart from seeing the truth. You’re blinded by your own pride - concupicence…since I’ve been there I recognize it. We are our worst enemies. Praying rosaries for you and placing you in the Divine Mercy of God. I have an on going list of people that fall under your same category on here - fallen away Catholics, which is different from those baptized but not actually raised Catholic. I’ve been both.

 

[vocatio]

Great post, LilyM!!

One for the Father
One for the Son
One for the Holy Spirit

 

[SIA]

That is true.
In Luthers final days right before he died.
He went to confession.
His last prayer was to the Blessed Mother.
And He receivedthe Eucharist.
He was still an ordained priest as were many of his fellow dissenters. You are following in Luther’s footsteps then. Dissenting it seems against you own faith from birth. There is one thing being a born Protestant but to truly be protesting possess something much more sinster…even if it is not you intent. You have cognitively chosen to walk away from the faith Christ established. I’ve been praying for you brother. I hope and pray that you realize you error one day like I did. Would you leave Peter because of Judas?

Lutherans no longer have the real presence from what I’ve learned. They like the Anglicans/Episcopalians changed the ordination from what I know. And therefore the Church does not recognize their ordinations as true holy orders. However, the Orhtodox do have valid sacraments and that is the main difference. Had you gone to the Orhtodox you would have had valid sacraments in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox priests I know believe the same from what I understand. I was considering becoming an Orthodox priest on my journey home.

No need to flare up your new Protestant faith beleif system to defend or attack. I’m thinking about starting another faith revealing thread. You my brother are Catholic whether you accept it or not. You have far too much to learn and the too much pride preventing your heart from seeing the truth. You’re blinded by your own pride - concupicence…since I’ve been there I recognize it. We are our worst enemies. Praying rosaries for you and placing you in the Divine Mercy of God. I have an on going list of people that fall under your same category on here - fallen away Catholics, which is different from those baptized but not actually raised Catholic. I’ve been both.

I can tell you that Anglicans really don’t care whether you call their ordinations valid or invalid. They know that they are in Apostollic Succession.

 

[vocatio]

You’re wrong here Lily. After Luther broke with Rome, so long as he still intended to turn the bread into the body of Christ, then the bread did indeed transubstantiate. It was not licit, but it was valid. Exactly the same as the SSPX or the Orthodox.

Actually, if he rejected his orders then I suppose it would no longer be valid either, but I’m not sure about this…

I believe that is what Lilly said.

As long as his intent was to concecrate the Eucharist then it was valid. However, if he did not believe and therefor did not intend to consecrate it …
[if I didn’t know better I’d say I have a buzzer on my rear. Our 3 year old pops up every time my wife or I try to escape a minute…notice time]

 

[vocatio]

I can tell you that Anglicans really don’t care whether you call their ordinations valid or invalid. They know that they are in Apostollic Succession.

You are wise to choose your words so carefully because you are in truth Catholic by your own admission on CAF. And I would assume they do not care.
I have yet seen one cradle Anglican doing the things you do on here either. Why? because their consciences aren’t pricking their hearts since they do not know better. But You should already know this…I get a very strong vibe that your conscience is really bother you deep down. Something’s wrong …I FEEL it. I think you are afraid of something…But what is it exactly? The same thing is there with Hisalone. There are others just like you here. The true Protestants do not react the way you guys do. You testimony to the truth really points to your dissent or pain or some kind of anger towards the Catholic faith. So then why would you even bother to be on a Catholic forum?..unless you were still trying to justify your choice to dissent.

I was a Fundamental Evangelical Protestant type always trying to convince others of the peril they’re in and to abandon their heretic ways causing them to reject God’s word. Rejecting the truth just puts you on the fast train to hell. Wide is the path that leads to distructoin. Yes, a real proselytizing type to say the least. That might explain my real forward approach with people now. Now I’m not afraid to speak my mind and it comes across as rude. In reality I’m speaking the truth in love, but if you are still angry at something or afraid your not going to like my approach. At least you picked somehting almost identical to Catholicism…that is even more strange because it was really an act of rebellion compared mine. I was erroniously convinced that I would burn in hell for practicing Catholicism. I was convinced my feelings didn’t matter. You chose a faith that made you “feel good” compared to Catrholicsm. That my friend is an extremely erronious method for picking what church you attend. You must know, understand and accept all the beleifs of that faith or otherwise be in dissent. That means you are being rebellious to put it bluntly. I was convinced that the Holy Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon and that my infanct baptism was invalid and that all their beliefs were Satanically induced supersticion. They scared the Hell out of me. When I sought help, I did not receive the kind of pastoral care I needed. I feared for my soul. It took several years to see the error once I buckled. I guess if your wife no longer makes you happy its okay to exchange her. Why would it matter. She no longer makes you feel good. Men do that all the time. It makes sense that they’d do the same with their church too. Some exchange our God for another God. Why not, they get tired of their old one. I would hate for God to get tired of me.

As it is clear now, my methods are probably quite diffferent than your accustomed to here. I would never say these things to a real Protestant that grew up in a Protestant Church and never was confirmed. Even 7 year olds are much too young to be held accountable for the erronious things they learned. My little brother is Catholic, but he just doesn’t truly realize it because he was never really introduced to Catholicism for one thing and more importantly not even God. My mother’s view of religion is that it is a crutch for weak people.

All of the ecclesial communities that broke with Rome get further and further away each day from the true Church. Like I said I have an ongoing list of you guys. You are also on my list of prayers. I keep an ongoing prayer intention for fallen away Catholics.

 

[bpbasilphx]

How about Luther when he consecrated the bread and wine did it turn into the body and blood?

Luther DID start off as a Roman Catholic priest and never denied that the Bread and Wine became the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
His choice was believe the bible or agree with the pope. He did not deliberately take himself out.
All born again churces which the Holy Spirit dwells are Christs body.**

**Says who?

Actually, Luther did NOT agree with the Bible. He called the Letter of St. James “the epistle of straw” because it flat out contradicted his teaching in justifaction by faith alone. He also insisted that the OT book of Esther was not canonical.**

 

[Atreyu]

But he explicitly intended to CONsubstantiate and not TRANsubstantiate - he didn’t believe in or at least admit the possibility (as the Orthodox do) of transubstantiation.

I wouldn’t think intending to consubstantiate would be close enough to ‘what the Church intends’ for the consecration to be valid, but then I’m willing to admit I may be wrong.

That’s right. But you included breaking Communion with Rome as a reason that one would stop being able to validly change the bread into the body of Christ. That is not right. Once Luther had broken Communion with Rome, he still could have validly consecrated the bread and wine. But he would not have if he did not have the intention of doing it, like you say.