Why is Eucharist Invalid Without Apostolic Succession?

[jinc1019]

I know the Church teaches there needs to be valid Holy Orders for the Eucharist to actually be transformed at Mass, but can anyone tell me what the reasoning for this is and/or give me an official Catholic reasoning for it?

I know that it’s related to authority but obviously the Eastern Orthodox priests are not under the authority of the Pope (yet they are recognized as valid) so I am confused what the guidelines actually are. Thanks in advance!

-Justin

 

[DavidFilmer]

Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with the Pope. It means that a Bishop was ordained by another Bishop, and he was ordained by a Bishop, and so on until you get back to an Apostle. The Greek Orthodox are one of several Eastern Catholic communions which have Apostolic succession (and valid Holy Orders), as well as the Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholic Church.

Apostolic succession is how the Church transmits its authority. We see an example of this when Paul ordains Timoty and Titus, and instructs each of them to ordain others, and gives them a list of qualifications for Bishops.

Apostolic Succession is required for Ordination. If a person is ordained as a Bishop, he may transmit his Orders to others. Most people are ordained as priests. A priest may not ordain, but he has the authority to conduct any other Sacrament (in the case of Confirmation, as an extraordinary minister). This includes Eucharist.

Apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to transmit Orders. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders also requires valid subject, form, matter, and intent. The Anglican Church originally possessed valid Orders, but lost them due to a theological shift which invalidated their intent (and probably form). By the time this was corrected by the Oxford movement, the Anglicans had no valid Bishops left. Anglicans had (and still have) valid succession, but invalid Orders.

We know that our Apostolic succession is valid beyond all possible doubt. We don’t know the lineage of any Bishop (meaning we don’t know the names or identities of all of that Bishop’s forebears), but we don’t need to. We know this from math. I explain how in post #7 of this thread.

 

[jinc1019]

Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with the Pope. It means that a Bishop was ordained by another Bishop, and he was ordained by a Bishop, and so on until you get back to an Apostle. The Greek Orthodox are one of several Eastern Catholic communions which have Apostolic succession (and valid Holy Orders), as well as the Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholic Church.

Apostolic succession is how the Church transmits its authority. We see an example of this when Paul ordains Timoty and Titus, and instructs each of them to ordain others, and gives them a list of qualifications for Bishops.

Apostolic Succession is required for Ordination. If a person is ordained as a Bishop, he may transmit his Orders to others. Most people are ordained as priests. A priest may not ordain, but he has the authority to conduct any other Sacrament (in the case of Confirmation, as an extraordinary minister). This includes Eucharist.

Apostolic succession alone is not sufficient to transmit Orders. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders also requires valid subject, form, matter, and intent. The Anglican Church originally possessed valid Orders, but lost them due to a theological shift which invalidated their intent (and probably form). By the time this was corrected by the Oxford movement, the Anglicans had no valid Bishops left. Anglicans had (and still have) valid succession, but invalid Orders.

We know that our Apostolic succession is valid beyond all possible doubt. We don’t know the lineage of any Bishop (meaning we don’t know the names or identities of all of that Bishop’s forebears), but we don’t need to. We know this from math. I explain how in post #7 of this thread.

First of all, thank you for replying!

Secondly, I understand all of the points you raised. I never said the Pope had anything to do with apostolic succession…I said it had to do with authority, which I am sure you would argue it does.

My question is not WHAT the Church teaches about Holy Orders. My question is: What is the reason for it? In other words, WHY CAN’T a person outside of apostolic succession transform bread and wine into body and blood, according to Catholic teaching?

 

[Regina_Love]

Jesus passed on “His Authority” to the 12 Disciples, who became our first Bishops. It is Jesus’s Authority which empowers a Priest to transubstanciate.

I can give my power of attorney to some one to make legal changes to my estate, or even my own health care. But only some one I have given legal power of attorney to would be empowered to do such things on my behalf.

 

[NovusAugustus]

I believe the Great Commission is relevant here, even though it is usually used pertaining to Penance:

“19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.””–John 20:19-23

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. At that point he alone had that power because the “Father [had sent him]” (verse 21). So, when he gave them the authority he had had while on Earth–“so I send you,”(verse 21) they and they alone received his power to carry out the sacraments.

 

[jinc1019]

Jesus passed on “His Authority” to the 12 Disciples, who became our first Bishops. It is Jesus’s Authority which empowers a Priest to transubstanciate.

I can give my power of attorney to some one to make legal changes to my estate, or even my own health care. But only some one I have given legal power of attorney to would be empowered to do such things on my behalf.

Thanks for posting!

Yes, I understand the principle…But that is not a theological reason based on scripture or tradition or anything else…it’s just a theory of how one sees an already existing doctrine. I guess what I am saying is: What made the Catholic Church think this in the first place? Is there something from the Early Church Fathers or something? From what I have read, some of the ECFs didn’t tie the validity of sacraments to whether someone was in the Church or not. Augustine, for instance, wrote this.

 

[jinc1019]

I believe the Great Commission is relevant here, even though it is usually used pertaining to Penance:

“19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.””–John 20:19-23

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. At that point he alone had that power because the “Father [had sent him]” (verse 21). So, when he gave them the authority he had had while on Earth–“so I send you,”(verse 21) they and they alone received his power to carry out the sacraments.

That is much closer to what I was looking for so thank you for posting. However, how would you respond to Mark 9:38-41:

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Doesn’t this show that even those “not with” them could do miraculous things in Jesus’ name?

 

[jinc1019]

I believe the Great Commission is relevant here, even though it is usually used pertaining to Penance:

“19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.””–John 20:19-23

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. At that point he alone had that power because the “Father [had sent him]” (verse 21). So, when he gave them the authority he had had while on Earth–“so I send you,”(verse 21) they and they alone received his power to carry out the sacraments.

Additionally, as you already pointed out, the Great Commission really says nothing about the ability to turn wine into blood and bread into body…It’s about forgiving sins. And, it also says nothing about the successors of the Apostles, which is really what we are talking about here. On those counts, I am not sure it answers my question.

 

[pablope]

First of all, thank you for replying!

My question is not WHAT the Church teaches about Holy Orders. My question is: What is the reason for it? In other words, WHY CAN’T a person outside of apostolic succession transform bread and wine into body and blood, according to Catholic teaching?

I think you will find the explanation here:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

B. The ministerial priesthoods

1. The Old Testament priesthoods: drink, grain, animal

But formal, ministerial priests have a separate set of offerings. This is true both in the Old Testament and the New.

In the Old Testament the most notable sacrifices the priests offered were the drink offerings, the grain offerings, and the animal offerings that were prescribed by the Law of Moses.

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.

 

[Elizium23]

Additionally, as you already pointed out, the Great Commission really says nothing about the ability to turn wine into blood and bread into body…It’s about forgiving sins.

Each of the form of bread and the form of wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Jesus’ body and blood are not divided in this way you have said.

 

[NovusAugustus]

Additionally, as you already pointed out, the Great Commission really says nothing about the ability to turn wine into blood and bread into body…It’s about forgiving sins. And, it also says nothing about the successors of the Apostles, which is really what we are talking about here. On those counts, I am not sure it answers my question.

That’s a very good question and one I’m afraid I don’t know how to answer. If I were you, I would try researching on catholic.com, using the Ask An Apologist section, or asking a well-informed priest.

My last point would be to say that, as I have said, Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Priests then act in persona Christi, which I’m sure you know means “in the person of Christ”–they literally do Christ’s work on Earth for him. I think that Holy Orders confer that ability on a man that an ordinary layperson does not possess.

Put simply, laypeople/people without Holy Orders can’t consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist because they aren’t and can’t act in persona Christi.

The question that then arises is WHY we can’t ALL act in persona Christi. That’s the tough one that I suggest you ask someone else about. I suspect, as pablope seems to be driving at in his post, it arises from Christianity’s Jewish heritage.

 

[jinc1019]

I think you will find the explanation here:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

B. The ministerial priesthoods

1. The Old Testament priesthoods: drink, grain, animal

But formal, ministerial priests have a separate set of offerings. This is true both in the Old Testament and the New.

In the Old Testament the most notable sacrifices the priests offered were the drink offerings, the grain offerings, and the animal offerings that were prescribed by the Law of Moses.

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.

It does answer my question, yes. Thank you!

 

[DavidFilmer]

That is much closer to what I was looking for so thank you for posting. However, how would you respond to Mark 9:38-41:

Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

Casting out demons is not a Sacrament. The Church has never insisted that only an ordained minister may do this (though it would be unusual otherwise). There are MANY things we can do in Jesus’ name.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There’s an offense called “simony” - the buying or selling of a religious office. The original Simon understood that authority was transferred from people who had it already (it could not just be claimed outright). From Acts 8:

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John [both Bishops] to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

Simon was right about how authority is transmitted, but wrong in how it is obtained - it is not to be bought or sold.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

the Great Commission really says nothing about the ability to turn wine into blood and bread into body…It’s about forgiving sins.

Actually it does since Christ said in the Last supper;

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:28[/BIBLEDRB]

I do believe venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist, provided one is sorry for them. .

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi Jinc

Just to throw in an alternative perspective - I would question whether Christ really withholds his presence and saving grace from those, in faith, breaking bread, sharing communion, or sharing Eucharist in other churches. For where two or three gather in Jesus’s name, he is there with them. Personally I have good hope that that Jesus will be present with all those breaking bread in his name, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I do think, however, some churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, some Anglican) do have a more profound sense of the depth of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Perhaps in recent times I have developed some sympathy for Luther’s view that what is happening is between God and the person (or people, as it is not just an individual event) of faith, and that the priest (or minister of another church) is facilitating that interaction. I certainly think too much polemic has developed in discussion of the mystery of the Eucharist between different parts of the Body of Christ.

God bless +

Michael

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc

Just to throw in an alternative perspective - I would question whether Christ really withholds his presence and saving grace from those, in faith, breaking bread, sharing communion, or sharing Eucharist in other churches. For where two or three gather in Jesus’s name, he is there with them. Personally I have good hope that that Jesus will be present with all those breaking bread in his name, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I do think, however, some churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, some Anglican) do have a more profound sense of the depth of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Perhaps in recent times I have developed some sympathy for Luther’s view that what is happening is between God and the person (or people, as it is not just an individual event) of faith, and that the priest (or minister of another church) is facilitating that interaction. I certainly think too much polemic has developed in discussion of the mystery of the Eucharist between different parts of the Body of Christ.

God bless +

Michael

Very interesting coming from a Catholic Michael. I greatly appreciate it. Personally, I feel the exact same way, which is why I am interested in understanding why the Church says it cannot be done.

Interestingly, from my studies, I have found that the Early Church Fathers disagreed heavily on this issue. For instance, Augustine taught that it didn’t matter in the case of baptism OR the Eucharist, but many Church Fathers believed that one must have apostolic succession for BOTH baptism and the Eucharistic feast, which is obviously a departure from current Catholic teaching.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually it does since Christ said in the Last supper;

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:28[/BIBLEDRB]

I do believe venial sins are forgiven when we receive the Eucharist, provided one is sorry for them. .

You are assuming though an EXCLUSIVE right to forgive sins. If I give keys to my children and say, “You can take the car out tonight.” It doesn’t mean my wife can’t.

Other than that…I get your point.

 

[jinc1019]

That’s a very good question and one I’m afraid I don’t know how to answer. If I were you, I would try researching on catholic.com, using the Ask An Apologist section, or asking a well-informed priest.

My last point would be to say that, as I have said, Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Priests then act in persona Christi, which I’m sure you know means “in the person of Christ”–they literally do Christ’s work on Earth for him. I think that Holy Orders confer that ability on a man that an ordinary layperson does not possess.

Put simply, laypeople/people without Holy Orders can’t consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist because they aren’t and can’t act in persona Christi.

The question that then arises is WHY we can’t ALL act in persona Christi. That’s the tough one that I suggest you ask someone else about. I suspect, as pablope seems to be driving at in his post, it arises from Christianity’s Jewish heritage.

I appreciate your response…that is precisely what I am driving at. I don’t understand why we, as a priesthood of believers, can’t act “in persona Christi,” assuming of course that the theology behind that teaching is valid. I am not sure that it is.

At any rate, I will look into it as you suggest!

 

[steve_b]

Hi Jinc

Just to throw in an alternative perspective - I would question whether Christ really withholds his presence and saving grace from those, in faith, breaking bread, sharing communion, or sharing Eucharist in other churches. For **where two or three gather in Jesus’s name, he is there with them. **Personally I have good hope that that Jesus will be present with all those breaking bread in his name, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I do think, however, some churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, some Anglican) do have a more profound sense of the depth of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

It’s one thing for 2 or 3 to pray and have Jesus in the room for example, It’s quite another thing to take bread and wine making them into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus. It requires a validly ordained priest to do that. Otherwise one practices idolotry. Protestants don’t have valid holy orders.
MA:

Perhaps in recent times I have developed some sympathy for Luther’s view that what is happening is between God and the person (or people, as it is not just an individual event) of faith, and that the priest (or minister of another church) is facilitating that interaction. I certainly think too much polemic has developed in discussion of the mystery of the Eucharist between different parts of the Body of Christ.

Irenaeus tells a story about John the apostle. Irenaeus was only 1 man away from John. He writes this story in his work “Against Heresies”

Bk 3 Ch 3 v4
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10

In our times, John would have also fled from Luther the heretic.