Why cant Protestant ministers consecrate the bread to

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SIA said:
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.
Click to expand...
"If "you are Anglican, please tell me how it follows that their Bishops, etc. are successors of the Apostles.
 
SIA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hisalone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been changed in the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church since its beginning. Many sources of validation, Tradition, Scripture, writtings of the Church Fathers from the first century onward are researched before a declaration of faith and dogma is made in order to maintain the truths of the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t accuse anyone of “making up anything as we go along” especially any belief of the Catholic Church. If you say this, you haven’t begun to scratch the surface of the history, nor proclamations of the Catholic Church. One can “make up” any accusation if one is too lazy to find out the truth.
 
elts1956 said:
Nothing has been changed in the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church since its beginning. Many sources of validation, Tradition, Scripture, writtings of the Church Fathers from the first century onward are researched before a declaration of faith and dogma is made in order to maintain the truths of the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t accuse anyone of “making up anything as we go along” especially any belief of the Catholic Church. If you say this, you haven’t begun to scratch the surface of the history, nor proclamations of the Catholic Church. One can “make up” any accusation if one is too lazy to find out the truth.
Click to expand...
LOL
You should read other sources than Catholic. The Catholic Church has strayed a great deal.
 
Members of the Catholic church has strayed…but not the church. There’s the difference. We are sinners, admit that too…that’s why we have the sacraments of Reconciliation. To bring us back to the fold.
 
bpbasilphx said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is, I’m sorry to say, simply wrong.
At least two Protestant churches have retained not only presbyterial succession, but also episcopalian succession - one is the Anglican church, the Swedish Lutheran church is another.

And all protestant churches who actually think that Communion is important, have retained presbyterial succession.
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought the idea behind this line of reasoning (that the validity of the Sacraments are dependant on the heart and opinions of the “performer” (sorry - not the right word, but it’s 2 AM and I can’t find the correct English word from the back of my head) ) was dismissed in the 4th century?
 
LutheranDK said:
I thought the idea behind this line of reasoning (that the validity of the Sacraments are dependant on the heart and opinions of the “performer” (sorry - not the right word, but it’s 2 AM and I can’t find the correct English word from the back of my head) ) was dismissed in the 4th century?
Click to expand...
You’re thinking of the heresy of Donatism - that is the belief that the personal sanctity of the minister determines whether the sacrament has been effected. In other words belief that a priest who is personally a grievous sinner can’t effectively baptise or celebrate the Eucharist or what have you.

It is true that THAT was debunked in the 4th century. Saying that a sinner can’t effect a sacrament is a ludicrous proposition, for one we’re all sinners, for another we can’t then possibly KNOW whether a sacrament has actually been performed in any given instance. Christ gave us the words and actions by which the Sacraments are performed so that we can have at least some degree of certainty.

Saying this is a different thing altogether to saying that what the minister intends or does not intend to do doesn’t matter. Surely you’d accept, for example, that a priest or minister who, while teaching in a seminary classroom and, purely to demonstrate the words and gestures of the Eucharistic service to his students, picks up bread and wine (his lunch?) and says the words doesn’t actually consecrate the Eucharist by doing so. Or a priest who is suffering from some mental disorder and goes through the motions of consecrating the Eucharist by habit without understanding a single thing he was doing or saying?
 
First of all, many Protestants reject the idea that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Second of all, in order to consecrate the Eucharist, a man must have received valid Holy Orders. In order to receive valid Holy Orders, the Church must have apostolic succession. Protestant churches do not have this, and many of them do not view ordination as a sacrament.
 
  1. In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders.[122] The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican Orders.
  2. The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”.[123] After careful reflection and debate, a growing number of Anglican Churches have proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate.[124] They have done so, despite sometimes strong differences of belief within those provinces, in the conviction that there are no theological objections to such a development, and that they are not departing from the traditional understanding of apostolic ministry nor the nature of ministry as set forth in the ARCIC statements.[125]
    vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20070914_growing-together_en.html
Here’s where the Anglican and the Catholic Church differ on apostolic succession.
 
stbruno said:
  1. In his Apostolic Letter on Anglican Orders, Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII ruled against the validity of Anglican Orders.[122] The question of validity remains a fundamental obstacle to the recognition of Anglican ministries by the Catholic Church. In the light of the agreements on the Eucharist and ministry set out both in the ARCIC statements and in the official responses of both Communions, there is evidence that we have a common intention in ordination and in the celebration of the Eucharist. This awareness would have to be part of any fresh evaluation of Anglican Orders.
  2. The twentieth century saw much discussion across the whole Christian family on the question of the ordination of women. The Roman Catholic Church points to the unbroken tradition of the Church in not ordaining women. Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed the conviction that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”.[123] After careful reflection and debate, a growing number of Anglican Churches have proceeded to ordain women to the presbyterate and some also to the episcopate.[124] They have done so, despite sometimes strong differences of belief within those provinces, in the conviction that there are no theological objections to such a development, and that they are not departing from the traditional understanding of apostolic ministry nor the nature of ministry as set forth in the ARCIC statements.[125]
    vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20070914_growing-together_en.html
Here’s where the Anglican and the Catholic Church differ on apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t care less about pope Leo. I care about my Anglican priests who follow and teach what Christ taught his Apostles. They are in Apostollic Succession and they know it.
 
SIA said:
I couldn’t care less about pope Leo. I care about my Anglican priests who follow and teach what Christ taught his Apostles. They are in Apostollic Succession and they know it.
Click to expand...
“I don’t care what the successor of Peter says! These Protestant priests (Protestant because their church rejected the authority of the successor of Peter) are in Apostolic succession because THEY say they are, even though the arbiter of Apostolic succession, the successor of Peter, says they are not.”

:rotfl: :ehh:
 
duskyjewel said:
“I don’t care what the successor of Peter says! These Protestant priests (Protestant because their church rejected the authority of the successor of Peter) are in Apostolic succession because THEY say they are, even though the arbiter of Apostolic succession, the successor of Peter, says they are not.”

:rotfl: :ehh:
Click to expand...
Not one time did you use the word Christ in your response to either accept or deny Anglican Apostollic Succession. Exactly what I expected.
 
Hisalone said:
So did Luter.
Click to expand...
No he did not.
  1. Luther believed in Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation.
  2. Luther believed in the “real presence” ONLY up until the end of his communion service. So that leads to 3.
  3. It was no longer the “real presence” after the service.
So Luther really & truly did NOT believe in the Real Presence otherwise he would know that Jesus remains the Eucharist long after the Mass and so long as the accidents remain intact.
 
AlegreFe said:
No he did not.
  1. Luther believed in Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation.
  2. Luther believed in the “real presence” ONLY up until the end of his communion service. So that leads to 3.
  3. It was no longer the “real presence” after the service.
So Luther really & truly did NOT believe in the Real Presence otherwise he would know that Jesus remains the Eucharist long after the Mass and so long as the accidents remain intact.
Click to expand...
not true
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your answer is only half right.
No matter if the priest believes in the Real Presence or not, the bread & wine are turned into the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ.
If it was the way you say it is, then we would have no Eucharist in many Catholic Churches. There were many Priests who celebrated the Mass who did not believe in the Real Presence, yet they were able to give us the Body & Blood of Christ because they stand In Persona Christi.
LilyM said:
At the point where he ceased to believe and ceased to be in communion with the Apostolic churches then no.
Click to expand...
Again, your answer is only half true. It didn’t stop “happening” because he ceased to believe, but because he broke from Rome.
 
SIA said:
Not one time did you use the word Christ in your response to either accept or deny Anglican Apostollic Succession. Exactly what I expected.
Click to expand...
*Matthew 16: 17-19

17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. **Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ***

How’s that?
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
      • :amen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top