Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
Why can't we the lay faithful consecrate bread and wine and also forgive sins since we have the spirit of God like priests.
Does the Bible say it is only the priests that are able to do those things?
Also, what is the proper definition of faith because some people define it in terms of being faithful; others define it as belief and trust.
Which is it?
Emeka
{ Why can't lay people bless bread and wine and forgive sins like priests and what's Sacred Tradition? }
Eric replied:
Emeka,
There isn't any evidence from the Bible that lay people can consecrate the Eucharist. The narrative that discusses the Last Supper only
mentions the Twelve (Mark 14:17). But beyond this, we are not
Bible-alone Christians, we rely on Tradition as well (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Tradition tells us that only ordained priests can consecrate the Eucharist:
"Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge."
The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch — Walsh, G. G. (1947).
In F. X. Glimm, J. M.-F. Marique, & G. G. Walsh (Trans.), The Apostolic Fathers
(Vol. 1, p. 121). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, A.D. 107
1575 Christ himself chose the Apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father's right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the Apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. (cf. Roman Missal, Preface of the Apostles I) Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops. (cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 21; Ephesians 4:11)
1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the gift of the Spirit, (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 21 § 2) the Apostolic line. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 20) Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders. (cf. DS 794 and cf. DS 802; Code of Canon Law, Canon 1012; Corpus Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium [OrthoCath][JGray.org][Wikipedia], Canon 744; 747)
Indeed, offering the Eucharist is the fundamental purpose of a priest. It's the reason he's ordained. Without that he has no purpose.
The Eucharist is fundamentally an ecclesial act; it is an act of the whole community together. It's not an individual action. It's why we call it communion — it is union with other people in the body of Christ.
Everyone has the Spirit of God, but not everyone has it to the same degree or for the same purpose:
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
Even in the Old Testament, only some people were priests.
Eric
Emeka replied:
OK . . .
This is sufficient for me as a Catholic, but what if you were explaining to a Bible alone believer?
Secondly, I thought whatever Jesus says to His Apostles, He was also addressing to us?
Emeka
Eric replied:
Emeka,
The idea that whatever Jesus says to His Apostles is addressed to us is a supposition. Nothing in Scripture teaches this. It is silent on the question. Therefore to approach Scripture with that exegetical lens would constitute an a priori bias, or at least an assumption. Here's a example that challenges this notion.
Consider the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22). The ruler asks him how to be saved. In the end, Jesus tells him to sell all his has and give it to the poor.
Does Jesus expect all of us to do this?
Jesus also told his disciples not to reveal his identity to anyone (Mark 8:30).
Are we to say that applies to us as well?
This is not a good method of exegesis.
I would also point out that there was not equality among the disciples. Jesus explained His parables to the Apostles but not to the masses:
11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; 12 so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.
33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
Even among His Apostles, Jesus took only Peter, James, and John up on Mt. Tabor for the Transfiguration so I think that, not only is there no evidence in Scripture that what Jesus said to His disciples applied to all of them, we have explicit evidence that Jesus did not mean for His Words to apply to all believers.
As for explaining to a Bible-only believer that only a priest can confect the Eucharist, there is really no convincing verse that can be used to do this. Your best bet is to show them that Scripture enjoins us to rely on Tradition as well as Scripture:
15 Hold fast to the traditions which you received, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
20 The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the Lord. 21 `As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the Lord. `My Spirit, which is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the Lord."
21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them."
16 He who listens to you, listens to me; he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me.
(Luke 10:16)
16 [Paul's] letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? 15 And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, `How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!' 16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, `Lord, who has believed our message?' 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: `Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the end of the world.'"
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
This is sufficient for me as a Catholic but what if you were explaining to a Bible alone believer?
You will have a hard time explaining Eric's answer to a Protestant because their underlying assumptions are different than what we believe as Catholic Christians.
Protestants believe that the foundation for their faith is the Word of God, and Catholics say,
Amen! brother preach it!
The problem is what they believe is the Word of God is different than what we believe the Word of God is.
They believe it is the Bible and the Bible alone while Catholic Christians believe is it both the Written Word of God (the Bible) and the Orally Transmitted Word of God. (Luke 10:16)
See these passages from my Scripture Passages web page.
You may want to bookmark these web pages for a future reference.
The foundation for their faith in the Bible
Our foundation for our faith is Jesus and the Church He founded on St. Peter and his successors.
The Church came before the Bible; the Bible didn't come before the Church.
Jesus founded His Church in 33 A.D. The Bible wasn't canonized until 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. That's about 350 years later and there was so much Oral Tradition that had been passed down during that 350 year time period.
That said, while there are some key points of faith that can be found in the Bible, there are other points of faith we have certainty in because these teachings have been passed down orally from generation to generation to generation to us today!
Both official Biblical and Oral teachings of the Church are safeguarded and, when needed, interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church; another divine teaching that Protestants reject.
You said:
Secondly, I thought whatever Jesus says to His Apostles is also addressed to us?
Yes and no; by our Baptism, we share in the royal priesthood of Christ and are called to share and spread the Gospel but there is a second ministerial priesthood that Christ established at the Last Supper. This is what the Catechism says on the topic:
Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ
.
.
1268 The baptized have become living stones to be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood. (1 Peter 2:5) By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9) Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church a kingdom, priests for his God and Father. (Revelation 1:6; cf. Revelation 5:9-10; 1 Peter 2:5, 9) The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 10 § 1)
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ. While being ordered one to another, they differ essentially. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 10 § 2)
In what sense?
While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace — a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit—, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church.
For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
That said, you would have to be faith-sharing with an opened-minded Protestant since most of them reject many of the sacraments we believe in.
Faith-sharing is good and can be fruitful if both sides are open to the other sides view;
it can be a waste of time if one side or the other is just trying to win an argument or win a point by playing Biblical Ping Pong or Biblical Tennis. e.g.
Let me hit you one with this chapter and verse
then your friend hits back to you with his chapter and verse
and so on, and so on, and so on.
I hope this helps,
Mike
Emeka replied:
So what exactly is Sacred Tradition?
Is it the oral teachings of the Apostles?
If yes, then can't it be that, while transmitting these teachings, the teachings can be corrupted?
In short, how do we know what Sacred Tradition is?
Are the traditions something that can be compiled?
Or better still, give me an example of a Sacred Tradition teaching.
Are we saying that what St. Paul taught the Church in his time is part of Catholic tradition?
I am confused.
Emeka
Eric replied:
Emeka,
We know it won't be corrupted from these verses:
13 But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
20 The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the Lord. 21 `As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the Lord. `My Spirit, which is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the Lord."
Sacred Tradition is whatever teachings of the Apostles, the teaching office (Magisterium) of the Church, say are true or revealed by God. This can be expressed either through an Ecumenical Council of all the bishops of the world, or by the pope alone speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) in matters of faith or morals. Sacred Tradition is discerned by the living voice of the Church:
"He who listens to you, listens to me; he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
(This is another verse, on another topic, that can't possibly apply to all believers.)
"He whom God sends speaks God's word, for God gives the Spirit without limit." (John 3:34)
"What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you — guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us." (2 Timothy 1:13ff)
To answer your question, yes, what St. Paul, and indeed all the other Apostles, taught the Church in his time, is part of Catholic Tradition. A few good examples of Sacred Traditions, besides the teaching that only priests can confect the Eucharist, are:
The Canon of Scripture. There is no inspired Table of Contents of the Bible; when the books, or rather scrolls of the Scriptures were written, there was no such thing as a book like we have today (a codex) and they were all a loose collection of writings. That is why they are called Scriptures, plural. The canon of the New Testament did not solidify until the late 4th, early 5th century. Lots of books before then were considered Scripture by some that aren't now, and some books which are now considered Scripture, weren't considered Scripture by some back then.
The fact that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, John. No one can come along today and add to or subtract from teachings that are binding on all Christians; only those things that have roots in Apostolic Tradition in the first century are admissible for belief. But this is nowhere found in the New Testament.
The doctrine that the Son of God is of the same substance as the Father. (Substance here is a specific philosophical concept pertaining to being; it doesn't mean matter or material as it does in common parlance.)
That the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ through transubstantiation.
Hope those examples help.
What we believe about Tradition is pretty well explained by St. Vincent of Lerins:
"O Timothy, keep the deposit"... the deposit is that which was entrusted
to you, not discovered by you. You received it, you did not draw it
from your own resources. It is not the fruit of any personal
understanding but of a teaching. It is not kept for any personal use,
but belongs to a public tradition. It does not come from you, but has
come to you. With respect to it you cannot act as author, but only as a
simple keeper. You are not its initiator, but its disciple. It is not
for you to direct it, but your duty is to follow it.
St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitoria, circa 434 A.D.
[1] With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I
might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way,
distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape
the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound
in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to
fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the
authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic
Church.
[2] Here, perhaps, someone may ask: "If the canon of the Scriptures
be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it
necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined
to it?" Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own
depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning.
The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by
others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as
there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in
another, Donatus in another; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius in another;
Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And
thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is
highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation
be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic
meaning.
[3] In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we
may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by
all (1). For this is, then, truly and properly Catholic. That is what
the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces
all almost universally (2). This general rule will be correctly applied
if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow
universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which
is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity,
however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is
clear, our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise
agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and
theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.
[4] What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of
the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal
Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole
body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church,
and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to
antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city,
or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the
greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if
there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort
is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the
Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they
belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith
and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers
approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with
one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as
to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitoria [2, 1], circa 434 AD [Jurgens 2168]
Eric
Emeka replied:
Eric,
Aren't the verses you are quoting from John 14 and 16, referring to all believers that the Holy Spirit will lead?
I still don't understand exactly what Sacred Tradition is.
How is Sacred Tradition known by the Church?
Emeka
Eric replied:
You said:
Aren't the verses you are quoting from John 14 and 16, referring to all believers that the Holy Spirit will lead?
No, and I can prove it.
If the Holy Spirit were sent to each individual Christian to lead them to all truth, then all Christians would agree on what's true, wouldn't they?
They don't. To say that the
Holy Spirit leads me, as an individual, to all truth is the height of arrogance and the opposite of humility: It means that everyone who disagrees with me isn't a Christian, because I know I am a Christian, and if they don't agree, then they obviously don't have the Holy Spirit and so can't be a Christian!! Pretty scary, huh?
Christianity is a communal faith. We are one body, the Body of Christ, as the song goes. We're all in this together. The truth is revealed to
the Body of Christ as a whole, not to separate individuals.
Sacred Tradition is communicated to us by the holy Fathers in the teachings handed down over the centuries from the Apostles. The word tradition means that which is handed over, and that's what it is:
What those before us have handed over to us from generation to generation.
We know what it is by the authoritative living voice of the Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Church, that is, the pope and
the bishops in communion with him. Tradition cannot be pinned down because it is a living voice. When a dispute arises in the Church, the Magisterium has the authority to act and make a decision about which teaching is consistent with Apostolic teaching and which is not.
You might be interested in the following podcast on Sacred Tradition:
Sacred Tradition cannot ever be corrupted, since Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide it.
Without the promise of the Holy Spirit, it would have been corrupted in the first year. Perhaps the first day. The Word of God, in Scripture and Tradition, is taught infallibly by the Church by the gift of infallibility Christ gives His Church, through His Spirit.
Paul
Emeka replied:
OK.
Why do we Catholics differ on what Sacred Tradition really is:
Someone said that Sacred Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.
Another one said it is the life, understanding and worship of the Church.
I am confused.
Emeka
Eric replied:
Emeka —
They are all different facets of the same truth.
You get different definitions of words from different dictionaries and different explanations of topics from different encyclopedias, too.
Eric
Emeka replied:
OK,
Why did Jesus say that He spoke in parables so that those who are not his Apostles will not understand?
Doesn't that mean He is the cause of their damnation (assuming they are damned)?
Emeka
Eric replied:
Emeka,
Jesus is quoting the prophet Isaiah 6:9, who was sent on a mission of mercy to an obdurate people whom God knew would not listen to him. It was not God's intention to prevent their understanding but to highlight the fact that the Scribes and the Pharisees were behaving as the obdurate people Isaiah spoke about.
13 I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see.
In the Old Testament, a manner of speaking was used where actions were attributed to God that were really committed by someone else to demonstrate that God ultimately was in control.
So therefore in Moses' day it was said, God hardened Pharoah's heart. It was Pharoah that really hardened his own heart, but it's attributed to God to show His power. Likewise in Isaiah 6:9,
9 they may see but not perceive
means that they are seeing without perceiving because of the hardness of their hearts.
Jesus spoke to them in parables so that it required some effort and overcoming obstacles to understand, which sorted out the merely curious from the truly interested. There were also misconceptions about the role of the Messiah, and threats from Rome, that required speaking in parables.
Eric
Mike replied:
Dear Emeka,
I just wanted to chime in a bit.
It's good that you are asking questions and Eric and Bob have done a great job in addressing many of them. Since none of us on the AAC team ever know the age, sex, and religious background of each questioner, It would be helpful if you could provide some background information (age and faith journey) so we could better assist you. An answer for a 7-year-old boy will be much different than an 62-year-old woman. Remember to Reply All.
That said, and in order to save time, have you thought about buying a cheap copy of our Catechism?
