Why is Eucharist Invalid Without Apostolic Succession?

[steve_b]

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!

Lk 22:

And he took bread, and gave thanks,( εὐχαριστέω eucharisteō ) and broke it, and gave it to them saying, This is my body which is given for you

19 **Do **this in remembrance of me

Do = ποιέω ,poieō

definition

1. to make
   a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
   b) to be the authors of, the cause
   c) to make ready, to prepare
   d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
   e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
   f) to make a thing out of something
   g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
2. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
3. to (make i.e.) declare one anything

Jesus wasn’t saying this on the balcony to every joe six pak in Judea. It was said to His apostles at table with Him when He instituted the Eucharist. And Jesus also ordained His apostles at the same time to do exactly what Jesus did.

 

[Usagi]

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.

I am familiar with what Augustine says about Baptism, but can you quote his words on the Eucharist, please? There’s a difference, as you noted in the OP, between validity outside the strict bounds of the Catholic Church (as we recognize in the Orthodox) and validity without Holy Orders at all (which I find it hard to believe a Father as late as Augustine would put forth).

As for why the Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist only when confected by a validly ordained priest, I would suggest that there has to be some objective qualification we can point to. Transubstantiation, as you know, isn’t visible or discernible in any empirical way. There has to be some objective reality in which believers can ground their faith, something that says “You can trust that this is the Eucharist.” Maybe in a different world it could have been just the repetition of the words of consecration regardless of the identity of the minister, but historically ordination has been an additional requirement.

You might also query some of the forum’s Orthodox or Eastern Catholic members, since they have the same requirement but do not look at things in terms of “validity” the way we do in the West.

Like you and Michael, I hold out some hope that the Lord (who, as we always say, is not bound by the strictures He has placed on us regarding the sacraments) does grant His presence to those who sincerely attempt the Communion rite without priests, whether via Transubstantiation or what Catholics call “spiritual communion” – but I could never say for sure whether He does do that, since those communities lack the objective guarantee of a validly ordained minister. Thus, even if God mercifully grants the grace of the sacrament to some or all who are unable to confect the real thing through no fault of their own, that doesn’t mean we should be holding that up as a reason to deprecate the role of the priesthood in administering the sacraments or imagining that not having them is somehow just as good.

Usagi

 

[DavidFilmer]

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.

Read WHERE?

You’re on my turf now (the Early Fathers). I think you may be confusing Augustine (the Saint) with Tertullian (the heretic). Tertullian (the heretic) wrote,

Vain shall we be if we consider that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for the laity. Are not we of the laity also priests? … Where there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, you both sacrifice (Eucharist) and baptize, and you are a priest to yourself alone. Indeed, where there are three, there is the Church, even be they laymen. [Tertullian, *An Exhortation to Chastity

, 7,3] (written circa 210 AD)

Augustine did not write anything that I know of about the minister of Eucharist. But Augustine was a Fifth Century Saint Some people (ahem, myself included) don’t consider a Father to be “early” unless he wrote during or before the age of the Council of Nicea (the first Ecumenical Council - early Fourth Century - AD 325)

Let’s look at a REALLY EARLY Father who wrote barely into the Second Century (AD 110), who has been recorded as a “hearer” of the Apostle John:

You must all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you should the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the Bishop. **Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the Bishop, or one whom he appoints. ** Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted, without the Bishop, either to baptize or to celebrate the agape, but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid. [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8,1, emphasis mine]

 

[jinc1019]

Lk 22:

And he took bread, and gave thanks,( εὐχαριστέω eucharisteō ) and broke it, and gave it to them saying, This is my body which is given for you

19 **Do **this in remembrance of me

Do = ποιέω ,poieō

definition

1. to make
   a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
   b) to be the authors of, the cause
   c) to make ready, to prepare
   d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
   e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
   f) to make a thing out of something
   g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
2. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
3. to (make i.e.) declare one anything

Jesus wasn’t saying this on the balcony to every joe six pak in Judea. It was said to His apostles at table with Him when He instituted the Eucharist. And Jesus also ordained His apostles at the same time to do exactly what Jesus did.

First of all,

To use ENGLISH dictionary definitions of terms used in Aramaic 2,000 years ago is really not very helpful. It doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus actually said or meant.

Secondly,
No one is saying, including Luther, that ANYONE could perform the act. You are putting words in his mouth, in my mouth, and in the mouth of the previous poster.

Thirdly,
You say it’s “one thing” for the Spirit to come upon a group of people when “two or three are gathered” in Jesus’ name…turning bread and wine into body and blood are two totally different things. But what about driving out demons? According to the Gospels, John approached Jesus, telling him that those “not with them” were driving out demons in the name of Jesus. How did Jesus reply? By insisting that those not against Him were “for” Him. How do you explain that?

Fourthly,
You bring up the story of Irenaeus…The trouble with your argument is that there are MANY Church fathers who taught all kinds of things the Church rejects today. For instance, some insisted that apostolic succession was necessary for baptism. Others insisted that people should be baptized later in life, not as infants (such as Tertullian). Others claimed, as did Augustine, that the bread and wine could be transformed without valid Holy Orders. Some fathers argued that images of Jesus should not be allowed in church. You can find an early Church father to support virtually any argument.

 

[jinc1019]

I am familiar with what Augustine says about Baptism, but can you quote his words on the Eucharist, please? There’s a difference, as you noted in the OP, between validity outside the strict bounds of the Catholic Church (as we recognize in the Orthodox) and validity without Holy Orders at all (which I find it hard to believe a Father as late as Augustine would put forth).

As for why the Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist only when confected by a validly ordained priest, I would suggest that there has to be some objective qualification we can point to. Transubstantiation, as you know, isn’t visible or discernible in any empirical way. There has to be some objective reality in which believers can ground their faith, something that says “You can trust that this is the Eucharist.” Maybe in a different world it could have been just the repetition of the words of consecration regardless of the identity of the minister, but historically ordination has been an additional requirement.

You might also query some of the forum’s Orthodox or Eastern Catholic members, since they have the same requirement but do not look at things in terms of “validity” the way we do in the West.

Like you and Michael, I hold out some hope that the Lord (who, as we always say, is not bound by the strictures He has placed on us regarding the sacraments) does grant His presence to those who sincerely attempt the Communion rite without priests, whether via Transubstantiation or what Catholics call “spiritual communion” – but I could never say for sure whether He does do that, since those communities lack the objective guarantee of a validly ordained minister. Thus, even if God mercifully grants the grace of the sacrament to some or all who are unable to confect the real thing through no fault of their own, that doesn’t mean we should be holding that up as a reason to deprecate the role of the priesthood in administering the sacraments or imagining that not having them is somehow just as good.

Usagi

The quote from Augustine is listed below. It appears in Book V of Augustine’s Anti-Donatists writings and is, in my opinion, extremely important. Obviously the passage is dealing PRIMARILY with baptism, since that was the issue at hand, but Augustine makes it very clear that the same principles apply to the Eucharist and all other sacraments:

How does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the water?(57) How can darkness bless the oil? But if God is present in His sacraments to confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered,then both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid, and evil men whom they profit not are everywhere perverse.

1. But what kind of argument is this, that “a heretic must be considered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?” And it must be acknowledged that “when he is baptized, he is questioned about the Church.”(58) Just as though the same question about the Church were not put in baptism to him who within the Church renounces the world in word and not in deed. As therefore his false answer does not prevent what he receives from being baptism, so also the false reply of the other about the holy Church does not prevent what he receives from being baptism; and as the former, if he afterwards fulfill with truth what he promised in falsehood, does not receive a second baptism, but only an amended life, so also in the case of the latter, if he come afterwards to the Church about which he gave a false answer to the question put to him, thinking that he had it when he had it not, the Church herself which he did not possess is given him, but what he had received is not repeated. But I cannot tell why it should be, that while God can “sanctify the oil” in answer to the words which proceed out of the mouth of a murderer, “He yet cannot sanctify it on the altar reared by a heretic,” unless it be that He who is not hindered by the false conversion of the heart of man within the Church is hindered by the false erection of some wood without from deigning to be present in His sacraments, though no falseness on the part of men can hinder Him. If, therefore, what is said in the gospel, that “God heareth not sinners,”(59) extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how then does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom his hand is laid? All which things are nevertheless done, and are valid, even at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of those who hate their brethren, even within, in the Church itself.

As you can see, Augutine even says “even within, in the Church itself,” indicating his argument is also valid OUTSIDE of the Church.

 

[jinc1019]

I am familiar with what Augustine says about Baptism, but can you quote his words on the Eucharist, please? There’s a difference, as you noted in the OP, between validity outside the strict bounds of the Catholic Church (as we recognize in the Orthodox) and validity without Holy Orders at all (which I find it hard to believe a Father as late as Augustine would put forth).

As for why the Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist only when confected by a validly ordained priest, I would suggest that there has to be some objective qualification we can point to. Transubstantiation, as you know, isn’t visible or discernible in any empirical way. There has to be some objective reality in which believers can ground their faith, something that says “You can trust that this is the Eucharist.” Maybe in a different world it could have been just the repetition of the words of consecration regardless of the identity of the minister, but historically ordination has been an additional requirement.

You might also query some of the forum’s Orthodox or Eastern Catholic members, since they have the same requirement but do not look at things in terms of “validity” the way we do in the West.

Like you and Michael, I hold out some hope that the Lord (who, as we always say, is not bound by the strictures He has placed on us regarding the sacraments) does grant His presence to those who sincerely attempt the Communion rite without priests, whether via Transubstantiation or what Catholics call “spiritual communion” – but I could never say for sure whether He does do that, since those communities lack the objective guarantee of a validly ordained minister. Thus, even if God mercifully grants the grace of the sacrament to some or all who are unable to confect the real thing through no fault of their own, that doesn’t mean we should be holding that up as a reason to deprecate the role of the priesthood in administering the sacraments or imagining that not having them is somehow just as good.

Usagi

In regards to the other points you make, I don’t deny that historically many church fathers have taken the view that apostolic succession was necessary. Many, however, have not. For instance, Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics, writes:

Let the heretics attempt something of the same kind, for their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare by its own diversity and disagreement that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man. This is so because just as the apostles would never have taught anything that was self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated any teaching different from the apostles … To this test, therefore, [the heretics] will be submitted for proof by those churches whose founder was not from the apostles or the apostolic men—since they are of a much later date, as churches are in fact being founded daily—but who, since they agree in the same faith, are considered no less apostolic because they are of the same family in doctrine.

 

[jinc1019]

Read WHERE?

You’re on my turf now (the Early Fathers). I think you may be confusing Augustine (the Saint) with Tertullian (the heretic). Tertullian (the heretic) wrote,

Augustine did not write anything that I know of about the minister of Eucharist. But Augustine was a Fifth Century Saint Some people (ahem, myself included) don’t consider a Father to be “early” unless he wrote during or before the age of the Council of Nicea (the first Ecumenical Council - early Fourth Century - AD 325)

Let’s look at a REALLY EARLY Father who wrote barely into the Second Century (AD 110), who has been recorded as a “hearer” of the Apostle John:

I posted the quote from Augustine below, which clearly states what I said. Additionally, Tertullian is a “heretic” from your Catholic perspective. So is everyone who disagrees with the Magisterium. Even Popes have been “heretics” based on the Catholic perspective…So I don’t see how that argument (which isn’t really an argument at all) holds any water. It is so ironic that Catholics will bash Tertullian as a “heretic” when he was a valid bishop of the Church in the 2nd Century, while at the SAME TIME arguing that apostolic succession, which Tertullian had, has preserved completely the original teachings of the Apostles. You can’t have it both ways David. Either Apostolic Succession has kept the teachings COMPLETELY or it hasn’t. Further, Tertullian was very well-respected in his day, as you well know.

The history of Early Church is full of multiple schools of thought and theology on a whole variety of issues. Contrary to popular Catholic teaching, not everyone agreed in the Early Church on all kinds of things, including original sin, apostolic succession, infant baptism, etc.

 

[jinc1019]

Read WHERE?

You’re on my turf now (the Early Fathers). I think you may be confusing Augustine (the Saint) with Tertullian (the heretic). Tertullian (the heretic) wrote,

Augustine did not write anything that I know of about the minister of Eucharist. But Augustine was a Fifth Century Saint Some people (ahem, myself included) don’t consider a Father to be “early” unless he wrote during or before the age of the Council of Nicea (the first Ecumenical Council - early Fourth Century - AD 325)

Let’s look at a REALLY EARLY Father who wrote barely into the Second Century (AD 110), who has been recorded as a “hearer” of the Apostle John:

ADDITIONALLY,
If Augustine isn’t in the “early church,” and I don’t necessarily disagree with you on that point (although I would move the “early church” much earlier than you), then Catholic Answers should really stop using him in all of their “Early Church Fathers” apologetic tracts.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

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

Dear Justin,

Authority is not what enables a priest to offer Mass. It is the *sacerdotal character *he receives at ordination. The *sacerdotal character *enables the priest to perform certain functions in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), such as forgiving sins in confession, and transforming the bread and wind into the body and blood of Christ. These acts cannot be performed validly without the sacerdotal character. In other words, a person who does not have this priestly character cannot absolve someone of their sins, not transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

In order for a man to receives this priestly character, he must be ordained by a Bishop; and for a man to be made Bishop, he must be ordained by one who is already a Bishop. The first Bishops were the apostles, who were ordained by Jesus Himself. Apostolic succession is the succession of Bishops from the apostles down to our current time. Since priests are ordained by Bishops, they too have a direct link to Jesus and the apostles.

 

[steve_b]

First of all,

To use ENGLISH dictionary definitions of terms used in Aramaic 2,000 years ago is really not very helpful. It doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus actually said or meant.

τοῦτο , ποιεῖτε , εἰς , τὴν , ἐμὴν , ἀνάμνησιν. [Lk 22:19] from the Greek

I had to put (,) between each word to keep them seperated as individual words when I hit “post”.

I left the link operational for each word. Click on the highlighted word ποιεῖτε to read about it. Again, it’s from the Greek translation. I don’t invent the definition of a word

The Catholic Church has been here from the 1st century. It’s the Church Jesus builds and gave all His promises to. It’s the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth.
j:

Secondly,
No one is saying, including Luther, that ANYONE could perform the act. You are putting words in his mouth, in my mouth, and in the mouth of the previous poster.

I was merely responding to what you wrote noting the context of your response forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10983636&postcount=19

NovusAugustus said “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.”

To which you said “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.”
.
My response to you was to show where Jesus made the distinction on what the validly ordained can do.
j:

Thirdly,
You say it’s “one thing” for the Spirit to come upon a group of people when “two or three are gathered” in Jesus’ name…turning bread and wine into body and blood are two totally different things. But what about driving out demons? According to the Gospels, John approached Jesus, telling him that those “not with them” were driving out demons in the name of Jesus. How did Jesus reply? By insisting that those not against Him were “for” Him. How do you explain that?

Anyone can do good works…even an atheist. Don’t confuse doing good works with what an ordained priest can do in the order of his ministry…
j:

Fourthly,
You bring up the story of Irenaeus…The trouble with your argument is that there are MANY Church fathers who taught all kinds of things the Church rejects today. For instance, some insisted that apostolic succession was necessary for baptism. Others insisted that people should be baptized later in life, not as infants (such as Tertullian). Others claimed, as did Augustine, that the bread and wine could be transformed without valid Holy Orders. Some fathers argued that images of Jesus should not be allowed in church. You can find an early Church father to support virtually any argument.

Well, now that you’ve said all that, I’m sure you can give the exact references to each point and each Church Father giving chapter and verse from their individual work.

 

[jinc1019]

τοῦτο , ποιεῖτε , εἰς , τὴν , ἐμὴν , ἀνάμνησιν. [Lk 22:19] from the Greek

I had to put (,) between each word to keep them seperated as individual words when I hit “post”.

I left the link operational for each word. Click on the highlighted word ποιεῖτε to read about it. Again, it’s from the Greek translation. I don’t invent the definition of a word

The Catholic Church has been here from the 1st century. It’s the Church Jesus builds and gave all His promises to. It’s the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth.

I was merely responding to what you wrote noting the context of your response forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10983636&postcount=19

NovusAugustus said “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.”

To which you said “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.”
.
My response to you was to show where Jesus made the distinction on what the validly ordained can do.

Anyone can do good works…even an atheist. Don’t confuse doing good works with what an ordained priest can do in the order of his ministry…

Well, now that you’ve said all that, I’m sure you can give the exact references to each point and each Church Father giving chapter and verse from their individual work.

Several things…
First, obviously I didn’t understand the translation issue you were getting at so you are definitely right about that piece of it. However, I don’t think there is anything that you said that definitively proves anything…not to mention, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic…so the point is still the same.

Secondly, the argument that “Catholic Church” has been here since the 1st Century is misleading. Yes, the organization has been. Have the teachings remained the same? I don’t believe they have, which is precisely why I have made all the points I have. You say the teachings are the same. I think if you read the Church Fathers in depth (not just one quote here and there), you will find that is not true. On some issues, yes…but on many issues…No.

Third, you make a fair point about the quote I have based on how I typed it. I can see why you would come to that conclusion. I don’t believe that laypeople can turn bread and wine into body and blood…neither did Luther. I wasn’t attempting to make that point. The point I was “driving” at is really why one person chosen for ministry, let’s say in a Lutheran church, cannot act “in persona Christi” but a person who was ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession can. I didn’t mean for it to come off like ANY layperson can do that. As you can see from the words used by the person I was responding to, he/she said “laypeople/people without Holy Orders.” From the Catholic perspective, everyone is a layperson without Holy Orders, so things get confusing when we start using that term talking about subjects like this. Either way, it’s a fair point because my statement was confusing.

Fourth, “casting out demons” is not a common “good work,” and to suggest that the point of that passage is related to permission to do good works is completely ridiculous. Based on your reasoning, we could substitute “casting out demons” in that passage with “feeding the homeless” and the meaning of the passage would be absolutely the same. Do you really think the Apostles would come to Jesus over a concern that people “not with them” were feeding the homeless? Or being kind to others? Or doing any of the things Jesus asked us to do as “good works?” Obviously not. The passage is about authority. That is the ONLY conceivable and reasonable interpretation. The Apostles came to Jesus to ask Him about their concerns about the authority of this other group “not with them” acting in Jesus’ name.

Fifth,
I have already shown two early church bishops, Augustine and Tertullian, disagreeing with modern Church positions on two separate issues. I apologize but I do not have time to go dig up every single quote on all of the issues I mentioned. A simple Google search will yield many of the results and I urge you to check for yourself. It’s not a big mystery that the Early Church Fathers disagreed. Virtually any Eastern Orthodox apologist will readily admit that…the difference between me and them is that they will also say that their bishops have the authority to make the final call…but they don’t pretend that all issues were unanimously agreed upon the way so many Catholic apologists do today.

 

[jinc1019]

Further, to Steve,

To suggest that you can take the word “Do” and somehow make a sweeping theological argument using that as your foundation is a big stretch. You yourself listed numerous possible definitions of the word which would disprove your own argument.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear Justin,

Authority is not what enables a priest to offer Mass. It is the *sacerdotal character *he receives at ordination. The *sacerdotal character *enables the priest to perform certain functions in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), such as forgiving sins in confession, and transforming the bread and wind into the body and blood of Christ. These acts cannot be performed validly without the sacerdotal character. In other words, a person who does not have this priestly character cannot absolve someone of their sins, not transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

In order for a man to receives this priestly character, he must be ordained by a Bishop; and for a man to be made Bishop, he must be ordained by one who is already a Bishop. The first Bishops were the apostles, who were ordained by Jesus Himself. Apostolic succession is the succession of Bishops from the apostles down to our current time. Since priests are ordained by Bishops, they too have a direct link to Jesus and the apostles.

Thank you for posting! I don’t disagree with anything that you said as it relates to the position of the Catholic Church. I agree that this is what the Church teaches. But I think you are missing my point. It ultimately is an issue of authority because if I say to you, "How do you know that the ‘sacerdotal character’ is what gives a priest his ability to do these things and act in persona Christi, you would inevitably be forced, at some point in the debate, to say that it must be true because the Church teaches that it is true and they have the AUTHORITY alone to do so. Authority is what it is all about. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority you claim, then it is based on evidence and history to make the determination, and based on history alone, one can come to all kinds of conclusions about a bunch of issues. For instance, which books belong in the Bible? Well, depending on which group of Jews you talked to at the time of Jesus, you would have had completely different answers. Some early Christians even OPPOSED the Book of Revelation being included in the Bible…Others wanted more books to be added. The Eastern Orthodox Church still has more books included in its Bible (in the Old Testament) than the Catholic Church…the REASON the Catholic Church is “right” is not because history proves their case. Many people disagreed on that issue. The REASON they are right is due to their authority. So really, it all comes down to that. If they have the authority, then who am I or anyone else to question them? If they don’t, then their theological positions are only right if they are historically accurate…not simply because they declare it to be so.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

Thank you for posting! I don’t disagree with anything that you said as it relates to the position of the Catholic Church. I agree that this is what the Church teaches. But I think you are missing my point. It ultimately is an issue of authority because if I say to you, "How do you know that the ‘sacerdotal character’ is what gives a priest his ability to do these things and act in persona Christi, you would inevitably be forced, at some point in the debate, to say that it must be true because the Church teaches that it is true and they have the AUTHORITY alone to do so. Authority is what it is all about. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority you claim, then it is based on evidence and history to make the determination, and based on history alone, one can come to all kinds of conclusions about a bunch of issues. For instance, which books belong in the Bible? Well, depending on which group of Jews you talked to at the time of Jesus, you would have had completely different answers. Some early Christians even OPPOSED the Book of Revelation being included in the Bible…Others wanted more books to be added. The Eastern Orthodox Church still has more books included in its Bible (in the Old Testament) than the Catholic Church…the REASON the Catholic Church is “right” is not because history proves their case. Many people disagreed on that issue. The REASON they are right is due to their authority. So really, it all comes down to that. If they have the authority, then who am I or anyone else to question them? If they don’t, then their theological positions are only right if they are historically accurate…not simply because they declare it to be so.

OK I see your point, and I agree 100%. In fact, if you were going to get into an argument with me over what I wrote, I was already planning to tell you that the only hope for anyone to know the truth is to submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the divinely established depository, and infallible interpreter and teaching of Divine Revelation.

After years and years of arguing with non-Catholics, I have come to realize that the only hope they have of arriving at the truth, is to be convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and submit to what it teaches. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and outside of the Church there is no hope of arriving at the totality of revealed truth. That is why there are thousands of different non-Catholic groups, separated one from another, and continuously being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.

 

[jinc1019]

Several things…
First, obviously I didn’t understand the translation issue you were getting at so you are definitely right about that piece of it. However, I don’t think there is anything that you said that definitively proves anything…not to mention, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic…so the point is still the same.

Secondly, the argument that “Catholic Church” has been here since the 1st Century is misleading. Yes, the organization has been. Have the teachings remained the same? I don’t believe they have, which is precisely why I have made all the points I have. You say the teachings are the same. I think if you read the Church Fathers in depth (not just one quote here and there), you will find that is not true. On some issues, yes…but on many issues…No.

Third, you make a fair point about the quote I have based on how I typed it. I can see why you would come to that conclusion. I don’t believe that laypeople can turn bread and wine into body and blood…neither did Luther. I wasn’t attempting to make that point. The point I was “driving” at is really why one person chosen for ministry, let’s say in a Lutheran church, cannot act “in persona Christi” but a person who was ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession can. I didn’t mean for it to come off like ANY layperson can do that. As you can see from the words used by the person I was responding to, he/she said “laypeople/people without Holy Orders.” From the Catholic perspective, everyone is a layperson without Holy Orders, so things get confusing when we start using that term talking about subjects like this. Either way, it’s a fair point because my statement was confusing.

Fourth, “casting out demons” is not a common “good work,” and to suggest that the point of that passage is related to permission to do good works is completely ridiculous. Based on your reasoning, we could substitute “casting out demons” in that passage with “feeding the homeless” and the meaning of the passage would be absolutely the same. Do you really think the Apostles would come to Jesus over a concern that people “not with them” were feeding the homeless? Or being kind to others? Or doing any of the things Jesus asked us to do as “good works?” Obviously not. The passage is about authority. That is the ONLY conceivable and reasonable interpretation. The Apostles came to Jesus to ask Him about their concerns about the authority of this other group “not with them” acting in Jesus’ name.

Fifth,
I have already shown two early church bishops, Augustine and Tertullian, disagreeing with modern Church positions on two separate issues. I apologize but I do not have time to go dig up every single quote on all of the issues I mentioned. A simple Google search will yield many of the results and I urge you to check for yourself. It’s not a big mystery that the Early Church Fathers disagreed. Virtually any Eastern Orthodox apologist will readily admit that…the difference between me and them is that they will also say that their bishops have the authority to make the final call…but they don’t pretend that all issues were unanimously agreed upon the way so many Catholic apologists do today.

I just wanted to point out that I made a mistake here…Tertullian was not a bishop.

 

[jinc1019]

OK I see your point, and I agree 100%. In fact, if you were going to get into an argument with me over what I wrote, I was already planning to tell you that the only hope for anyone to know the truth is to submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the divinely established depository, and infallible interpreter and teaching of Divine Revelation.

After years and years of arguing with non-Catholics, I have come to realize that the only hope they have of arriving at the truth, is to be convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and submit to what it teaches. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and outside of the Church there is no hope of arriving at the totality of revealed truth. That is why there are thousands of different non-Catholic groups, separated one from another, and continuously being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.

I agree that this is the best argument the Catholic Church can make.

 

[jinc1019]

Read WHERE?

You’re on my turf now (the Early Fathers). I think you may be confusing Augustine (the Saint) with Tertullian (the heretic). Tertullian (the heretic) wrote,

Let’s look at a REALLY EARLY Father who wrote barely into the Second Century (AD 110), who has been recorded as a “hearer” of the Apostle John:

I think it’s also important to note David, as I am sure you well know, that in the time of Ignatius, “bishops” and “elders” were likely still one order and the Didache, also from the time of Ignatius, and likely earlier) notes that bishops themselves were appointed by a local board of presbyters…

So let’s say you are right about your quote from Ignatius on the validity of the Eucharist…It doesn’t disprove my point. I agree fully that a bishop (overseer) of a church is the one with the authority to bless the bread and wine! I don’t think I, as a person who has not been called to ministry, should walk into a church and performing Eucharistic ceremonies! (which may very well differ with Tertullian as you already pointed out). However, your argument that “bishops” must be present says NOTHING about apostolic succession. Martin Luther would have agreed with your statement completely and he completely rejected apostolic succession. All your statement says is that bishops, church leaders, have that role and others do not. It doesn’t say that only bishops who have been validly ordained based on a set of defined criteria and who can trace their ordination down through the ages (by laying on of hands) to the Apostles themselves are the ones who have the power or authority to hold a mass. For all we know, Ignatius was talking about bishops without the very laying on of hands you are talking about. He simply doesn’t address it in that passage.

In many of the writings I have seen from Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, the focus when talking about apostolic succession is the HANDING DOWN OF TRUTH…not the handing down of authority. Even when authority is mentioned, it is usually meant within the context that one church or another has a place of authority because of their reliability in relaying the Gospel message.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

I agree that this is the best argument the Catholic Church can make.

I don’t think it is the best argument because it probably won’t convince anyone, whereas there are other arguments that may be able to do so. But in my experience, even if you convince a non-Catholic on one or two points, they are still in the dark on the remainder of the doctrines of Christ. That’s why I think the only hope is to realize that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. And that will not happen without grace. Study is important, but grace is the key. Therefore, for anyone truly seeking the truth, they need to pray daily to God to enlighten them to the truth; and they will know they have been enlightened when they realize that the Catholic Church is what is claims to be. And as a convert of many years, I speak from experience.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t think it is the best argument because it probably won’t convince anyone, whereas there are other arguments that may be able to do so. But in my experience, even if you convince a non-Catholic on one or two points, they are still in the dark on the remainder of the doctrines of Christ. That’s why I think the only hope is to realize that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. And that will not happen without grace. Study is important, but grace is the key. Therefore, for anyone truly seeking the truth, they need to pray daily to God to enlighten them to the truth; and they will know they have been enlightened when they realize that the Catholic Church is what is claims to be. And as a convert of many years, I speak from experience.

I actually think it is the best argument because if it is successful, everything else falls into place. Without it, it’s really tough to do.

 

[jinc1019]

[Well, now that you’ve said all that, I’m sure you can give the exact references to each point and each Church Father giving chapter and verse from their individual work.

Not that I want to get into every point (because like I said, I don’t have time for it), I did want to bring up one point about infant baptism since that was one of the things I mentioned…I said that Church Fathers disagreed on many things…well infant baptism is one of those things. You won’t find ONE direct statement in favor of infant baptism before 200 AD. However, you won’t find an EXPRESS prohibitions against it either. You will find people not recommending it though and it is well known many Christians of the early church did not get baptized until later in life (some say this is why Constantine waited to be baptized). After 200 AD though, you find MANY supports of infant baptism. This is just one example of it.
[/quote]