Why is a priest needed to consecrate the Blessed Sacrament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter albertus_magnus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

albertus_magnus

Guest
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.
40.png
Protestant:
Why is a Catholic priest needed to turn the bread into the body of Jesus? It seems to me like this is an attempt to monopolize access to this sacrament, which the church then says you need to be saved. More than anything else, it looks like an arbitrary rule invented to make Catholic priests indispensable. Since every Christian is a priest, if a Christian faithful to the word of God devoutly prays over the bread and wine, why would that not be enough for Jesus? It seems to me that I’d be covered whether or not transubstantiation is true.
Click to expand...
I don’t actually know if a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is necessary (I assume so, since I don’t see how the sacraments would work without a validly ordained priest), but if such a person is necessary, why, and how is this proved from either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition?

Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.

Thanks!
 
Good question 🙂
Wasn’t the apostolic succession even interrupted for quite some time?
 
504Katrin said:
Good question 🙂
Wasn’t the apostolic succession even interrupted for quite some time?
Click to expand...
:confused: uh? where did you get that notion?
The Catholic Church in Rome can trace back Her roots all the way back to the Apostles Peter and Paul, the same is true of the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome that can also trace back to the Apostles that founded them respectively.
 
While there is a common priesthood in Christ (the word used in 1 Peter 2:9 is ἱεράτευμα), it is separate from the ministerial priesthood (the word used in James 5:14 is πρεσβυτέρους).

In the Bible, ordination is conducted by the laying on of hands by an Apostle or bishop (Acts 6:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6). This laying on of hands is not to limit the conferral of grace on a select few, but to ensure that grace (such as the consecration of the Eucharist or absolution of sin) can be multiplied to the community of believers.
 
albertus_magnus said:
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.

I don’t actually know if a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is necessary (I assume so, since I don’t see how the sacraments would work without a validly ordained priest), but if such a person is necessary, why, and how is this proved from either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition?

Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The priest when consacrating the bread and wine pronounces Jesus words and needs to have the power that Jesus conferred upon the apostles and handed down through them.
When the Bishop ordains a priest by laying of the hands over the head of the priest he is following the same ritual that was performed since the OT when the Profets would “annoint” someone to a specific task.
Become a Profet or even the King.
They would lay the hands over the head and annoint it with oil.

If I or you decided to confect the eucharist we lack the authority by which we can do this, can you forgive or retain sins?
I cannot :rolleyes:
So there are many functions that require a properly ordained priest. 👍
 
albertus_magnus said:
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.

Why is a Catholic priest needed to turn the bread into the body of Jesus? It seems to me like this is an attempt to monopolize access to this sacrament, which the church then says you need to be saved. More than anything else, it looks like an arbitrary rule invented to make Catholic priests indispensable. Since every Christian is a priest, if a Christian faithful to the word of God devoutly prays over the bread and wine, why would that not be enough for Jesus? It seems to me that I’d be covered whether or not transubstantiation is true.

I don’t actually know if a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is necessary (I assume so, since I don’t see how the sacraments would work without a validly ordained priest), but if such a person is necessary, why, and how is this proved from either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition?

Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I would like to recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.”

Also, as is stated MANY times in the Bible, Jesus had singled out Twelve (12) of his deciples to be “Apostles.” These were the first bishops of the Catholic (Universal) Church.

Also, try this link: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I,

and this one: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html. I wish I had more time, but I will be back later tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
 
Well, first, it’s due to the nature of what the Mass is–a sacrifice.

Second, is due to the nature of what a priest is–a priest, by definition, is one who offers a sacrifice. That is why every church has an altar. An altar is a table upon which a sacrifice is offered (always found it a bit ironic, that so many protestant churches pretend to have an altar–yet make no pretense of offering a sacrifice–which makes the table, not an altar).

Third, as for why annointed priests–that is by Tradition, in order to preserve the integrity of the Faith. Allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to act as priest, opens the door up to 10,000+ interpretations, which naturally compromises the integrity of what is being done. See protestantism.

Fourth and finally, I ask rhetorically–why did Jesus assemble Apostles? Why does the Bible distinguish between Apostles and disciiples? All of the Apostles were also His disciples; but of the disciples, only the 12 (- Judas, + Matthias, + St. Paul) were Apostles. The replacement of Judas indicates succession; the addition of St. Paul indicates growth–(of the Apostles) = precedent.
 
albertus_magnus said:
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.

I don’t actually know if a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is necessary (I assume so, since I don’t see how the sacraments would work without a validly ordained priest), but if such a person is necessary, why, and how is this proved from either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition?

Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
As a Convert I am just wondering did you receive proper Catholic Instruction to ask such a question or is this question a wind up, ie. Why do we need a qualified electrician to do complex electrical work, why do we need a Scientist to do complex Lab work, why could not an ordinary person do Scientific work in a Lab, why do you think people go to lengthy College time to qualify by what you say know one should go to College to learn anything, the priest should not go to the Seminary to have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the Catholic Faith, you would do yourself a power of good to read the Old Testament to see what the requirements that God expects of His priests, please read the Catechism, you should know your faith, P.S Would you go to the expensive restaurant to a top Chef, pay top money, if his cooking skills were say good as yours- no- you would expect him to know how to cook and know all the skills and ingredients required.
Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ.:signofcross:
 
albertus_magnus said:
Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.
Click to expand...
Take a look at Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians, beginning with chapter 40. Also, see chapter 8 of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. Chapter 66 of Justin Martyr’s First Apology also speaks to the exclusivity of the Eucharist to the apostles (and their successors – after all, in the early Church, only the bishops celebrated the Eucharist).
 
albertus_magnus said:
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.

I don’t actually know if a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is necessary (I assume so, since I don’t see how the sacraments would work without a validly ordained priest), but if such a person is necessary, why, and how is this proved from either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition?

Quotes from early Christians would help, if any exist.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure Giorgias is correct that the Bishops were, early on, those who had the authority, given from the apostles, to consecrate the host and wine. However, early teaching also showed that they were allowed to delegate this authority to elders (read presbyters ie priests).

I’ll look around the internet for the sources. I’m sure they are available. Probably some of the letters of St Ignatius would be good support.

peace
steve
 
In my studies of the Catholic faith, I had wondered that too. I found some answers on, ironically enough :p, Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

It contains the below-listed declaration by Jerome:

**Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).**

Hope this helps! God Bless
 
albertus_magnus said:
…how is this proved from … Sacred Tradition?
Click to expand...
Hark! Doth someone cry out for Captain ECF, quotor of all things Early?
Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the Bishop, or by one whom he appoints. [St. Ignatius of Antioch, *Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Click to expand...
, ca AD 110]
Concerning deacons, whom we have known to offer Eucharist in many places: it is determined that this must never happen. [First Council of Arles, Canon 15, AD 314]
Click to expand...
Uh oh. Apparently some deacons were overstepping the bounds of their office - oops.
… blah Melchisedech …] our Lord and Savior - He from whom all the priests sent out to all peoples offer a spiritual sacrifice in accord with ecclesiastical regulations, representing by wine and bread the mysteries of His Body and of His Saving Blood. [Eusebius Pamphilus, *Proof of the Gospel
Click to expand...
5,3, inter AD 316-322]
Apparently people were still reeling from that little deacon problem - Eusebius didn’t miss the chance to add “in accord with ecclesiastical regulations.”
  • Captian ECF
 
Thank you to everyone who responded for your help, especially SonCatcher, Goya, Gorgias, and DavidFilmer.
 
albertus_magnus said:
Dominus Vobiscum

I have read this: catholic.com/quickquestions/why-can-only-priests-consecrate-the-eucharist

My question is more along the lines of why a priest with valid Apostolic Succession is needed to consecrate the host. Let me pose a not-so-hypothetical Protestant query, that I will roughly paraphrase below.

hanks!
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

From the OT:
  1. The Old Testament History: Kingdom of Priests
So it isn’t just the Church which is a kingdom of priests. Israel was a kingdom of priests, too. This came home to me in a very forceful way a few years ago when a history of Old Testament Israel was released by Baker Book House. The book is called, Kingdom of Priests, and the author is an Old Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. So even mainstream Evangelicals, like the folks at Baker Book House and Dallas Theological Seminary, recognize that Israel was a kingdom of priests.
  1. Exodus 19:21-22: Ministerial priests
But that did not stop Israel from having a special, ministerial priesthood. In fact, if you keep reading in Exodus 19, when you get down to verse 21 & 22, you will find God telling Moses to warn the people and the priests not to come onto the holy mountain, lest the Lord break out against them. So even in the very same chapter God is calling the whole nation a kingdom of priests, there is still a separate, ministerial priesthood.

The NT:
  1. New Testament priesthood
a. The priestly duty of preaching

i. Rom 15:15-16

The Bible indicates New Testament priests offer at least two sacrifices. One of them is discussed in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read:

“I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly duty of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering—a sacrifice to God.

ii. Every elder in every church

This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church has that same “priestly duty” of preaching the gospel. So Paul here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a priestly office.

iii. Ministers as priests, not the congregation

Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his duty of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest.

b. The Eucharist

i. The name of the sacrament

But converts to the faith are not the only sacrifice our New Testament elder-priests are to offer. They are also charged with distributing the sacraments, and one sacrament in particular has a sacrificial character: communion, or the Eucharist, as the Bible refers to it in the Greek text of Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24.

Also, read about Korah and his rebellion:

Most of us know those two examples, but who was Korah and what was his rebellion? The story is found in Numbers 16, and it concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says: “Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’”

After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.

It is against this sin that the book of Jude warns us, because the same thing can happen in the New Testament age. Don’t think you can confine the warning against Korah’s rebellion to the Old Testament age. Jude tells us it was going on in his day as well.

It is against this erroneous conclusion that the book of Jude warns us, proclaiming that people who fall into this error perish in the rebellion of Korah. In the New Testament age there were people rising up and assuming the priesthood who had not been authorized to do so, and Jude records their judgment for us.
 
thenobes said:
I’m pretty sure Giorgias is correct that the Bishops were, early on, those who had the authority, given from the apostles, to consecrate the host and wine. However, early teaching also showed that they were allowed to delegate this authority to elders (read presbyters ie priests).

I’ll look around the internet for the sources. I’m sure they are available. Probably some of the letters of St Ignatius would be good support.

peace
steve
Click to expand...
The custom (in the Latin Rite) of the priest breaking the host and placing a small particle in the chalice after the consecration comes from the ancient practice of the Bishop sending Deacons out to local communities where the priest he had delegated to offer the Mass for those who could not be present at his Mass could incorporate it into the chalice after the priest had consecrated it as a symbol of the communion the priest and community had with their bishop. As the Church grew larger and larger, it was impossible to send the particle from the Bishop to each community but the practice was retained in the manner we are accustomed to today.
 
What if something happened and only 12 Christians would remain alive in the world. Could they never go to communion again or, would those 12 Christians make the new 12 Apostels, hence Bishops?
 
504Katrin said:
What if something happened and only 12 Christians would remain alive in the world. Could they never go to communion again or, would those 12 Christians make the new 12 Apostels, hence Bishops?
Click to expand...
Now that is an interesting hypothetical, although I don’t think all bishops and priests would ever get wiped out at the same time. (Matthew 16:19-23, etc.). Perhaps you should start a new thread with this one. I would enjoy following it!
 
504Katrin said:
What if something happened and only 12 Christians would remain alive in the world. Could they never go to communion again or, would those 12 Christians make the new 12 Apostels, hence Bishops?
Click to expand...
That is a fascinating question. Really, really fascinating. Questions like this is why I really like this Forum. We can plumb and probe our Faith.

Obviously, an arbitrary group of 12 surviving Christians could not replace the Apostles, who were chosen and ordained by Jesus himself.

If even one of these twelve survivors was an Apostolically-Ordained Bishop, then the question loses interest. Of course the Church could survive, provided the Bishop could confer Episcopal Orders upon other men (and they would do likewise, etc, etc). That is, after all, how the Church began.

But, what if only a handful of Christians survived? Maybe a priest or two, but that would only help the Christian community until the priests died. Without a Bishop to ordain more priests and Bishops, the Christian community would eventually be confronted with life without ordained ministers. So it would not eventually matter if a few priests (or deacons) were numbered among the original survivors.

Anybody can validly Baptize. So a Bishop-less Christian community could Baptize others, and thus grow. But any Baptized person who fell into mortal sin would forfeit his/her State of Grace, and would have no recourse to Sacramental Confession (or, perhaps, Extreme Unction). Such a person might have recourse through an act of perfect contrition (meaning we are truly sorry for offending God, and not because we are afraid of hellifre - but it assumes that we will avail ourselves of Sacramental Confession at our earliest possible opportunity, which would be impossible under these circumstances, so presumably an act of perfect contrition would be sufficient).

There is disagreement among modern Catholic theologians as to whether it is easy or hard for a person of good will to commit a mortal sin. If it is easy, then such a Christian community would be largely consigned to hell. If it is hard, then such a community could grow and largely achieve salvation, even though it was deprived of all other Sacraments.
 
GoRangers said:
Perhaps you should start a new thread with this one. I would enjoy following it!
Click to expand...
I agree that this question merits further dedicated discussion, so I have taken the liberty of opening a thread to discuss it in particular:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10824605#post10824605

If anyone has any (name removed by moderator)ut regarding this particular topic, I request that you do so in the dedicated discussion, as this is a bit off-topic for this particular thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top