Priesthood vs. the Real Presence & the Early Church

[Markie Boy]

You do realize the concept of priesthood doesn't require apostolic succession? Likewise, the doctrine of the Real Presence does not require a priesthood.

One can be a commited Protestant and yet affirm the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

Agree with the above - I don't think Scripture or the Early Church give us a Christian Priesthood at all - especially one that offers Sacrifice like the RCC teaches. That appears to take shape late 2nd century I think.

I would agree, we can have real presence without a ministerial priesthood.

But here is the idea I am grappling with - can we agree on this point:

1. The whole church was over-taken - which it literally was both East and West - with the idea that you need Apostolic Succession and a priesthood it produces, to have a Eucharist.

2. This is an error that flooded all of the church until the Reformation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agree with the above - I don't think Scripture or the Early Church give us a Christian Priesthood at all - especially one that offers Sacrifice like the RCC teaches. That appears to take shape late 2nd century I think.

I would agree, we can have real presence without a ministerial priesthood.

But here is the idea I am grappling with - can we agree on this point:

1. The whole church was over-taken - which it literally was both East and West - with the idea that you need Apostolic Succession and a priesthood it produces, to have a Eucharist.

2. This is an error that flooded all of the church until the Reformation.

I don't think the early church went off the rails. It was more a medieval development. Apostolic succesion was an idea that evolved gradually. It didn't take full shape until after the Reformation, around the Council of Trent.

I do accept that the Eucharist is a kind of sacrifice, and this is attested to even in the early church, but not because Christ is offered up again. It is a sacrificial act due to the nature of what the community of believers offers through their praise and thanksgiving joined with Christ's sacrifice, represented in the bread and wine.

 

[Markie Boy]

Not wanting to argue - but it seems the whole church was run by the system of priests and bishops long before the Reformation - definitely after Nicea in 325. So for over 1000 years at least.

Would you agree?

 

[tampasteve]

it seems the whole church was run by the system of priests and bishops long before the Reformation

Seems being the operative work that is accurate. When you look closer at the history it would really look like the church was much flatter, certainly the office of the Papacy was a innovation that grew out of the "issue" that the Bishop of Rome was the only Patriarch in the West. Further, it is evident that the Bishops of old were truly seen more as overseers than the loft position they grew into. If we look back and the councils and freedom individual priests and churches had we can see they were much more independent than things grew into.

Until Trent the local clerics had a lot more freedom into how they chose to "do" things, the variety of liturgies in the West being one example.

 

[Markie Boy]

I guess the point I have yet to resolve is this:

In the early church to the Reformation - the whole of Christianity came to think there are actually Christian Priests that are mediators - would you say this is an accurate statement?

 

[JM]

I guess the point I have yet to resolve is this:

In the early church to the Reformation - the whole of Christianity came to think there are actually Christian Priests that are mediators - would you say this is an accurate statement?

I think that's an anachronism. Some Christians in some parts of the world believed that and eventually over a long period of time the bad idea spread due to a lack of focus on scripture.

Christians such as the Waldenses (12th century) and many others denied that priests mediators.

 

[Markie Boy]

I really appreciate the Waldensians - but don't know as much about them as I'd like, so that's a good reference point.

The idea I am trying to wrestle with is, if a bad idea like the priest as mediator could over-take the largest portion of the church, could not also, the idea of the real presence in communion be a similar situation?

I just read John 6, and reading it as-is, without a denominational lens - I don't find real presence in communion there at all.

 

[JM]

I really appreciate the Waldensians - but don't know as much about them as I'd like, so that's a good reference point.

The idea I am trying to wrestle with is, if a bad idea like the priest as mediator could over-take the largest portion of the church, could not also, the idea of the real presence in communion be a similar situation?

I just read John 6, and reading it as-is, without a denominational lens - I don't find real presence in communion there at all.

A better question is, why was Zwingli the first person in 1500 years to change the meaning from "the real presence" to a memorial view?

Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed ALL believe in the real presence just in different ways. As a former Reformed Baptist I can tell you we believed, confessionally speaking, that Christ's presence was real and substantial. We "fed upon Christ" for spiritual health. The difference between Reformed and Lutheran was one of subjective presence verse objective presence. Reformed Christians believe you receive the real presence through faith alone, Lutherans believe Christ is objectively present so you must discern the Body and Blood to take part because you can eat and drink damnation upon yourself.

Zwingli made the change into merely a memorial.

As for John 6 I don't think that's the best place to start to prove the real presence. I'll try to say more later.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Markie Boy]

Thank you JM - much appreciated. I am not arguing from one side or another on this, just trying to figure it out. I was in a Baptist church, and they are so Zwinglian on communion, I can't fathom that there could be a Reformed Baptist position that gave creed to real presence. But from what I gather, that was the original Baptist position - in the London Baptist Confession?

But coming to the realization that the priesthood is an error that spread to the whole church for centuries, really had me considering that the same thing is possible with Real Presence. Does that make sense?

 

[JM]

Thank you JM - much appreciated. I am not arguing from one side or another on this, just trying to figure it out. I was in a Baptist church, and they are so Zwinglian on communion, I can't fathom that there could be a Reformed Baptist position that gave creed to real presence. But from what I gather, that was the original Baptist position - in the London Baptist Confession?

But coming to the realization that the priesthood is an error that spread to the whole church for centuries, really had me considering that the same thing is possible with Real Presence. Does that make sense?

I believed in the real presence when I first became a Christian and than left that position for a while eventually coming back to it. The Reformed position is different but still they believe in the real presence.

This is from an old post I made:

I believe in the real presence.

The Battle for the Table

John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature. His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven. In the debate, Calvin fought a war on two fronts. On the one hand, in dealing with the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, he refused to use the term substance with respect to the presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But over against those disciples of Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial, Calvin insisted upon the term substance. Here the term substance had two different nuances. With respect to Luther and Rome, the term substance meant “corporeal” or “physical.” With respect to the debate with Zwingli, Calvin used the term substance as a synonym for “real” or “true.”

From the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689:

“…for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him…” 30.1

“…Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed…”

“…spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers…” 30.7

A Baptist Catechism:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

Q. 107. What is the Lord’s Supper?

A. The Lord’s Supper is a holy ordinance, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. (1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16)

Q. 108. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord’s Supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body; of their faith to feed upon Him; of their repentance, love, and new obedience: lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. (1 Cor. 11:27-31; 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 13:5)

May the Lord bless you as you feed upon Him.

jm
PS: It's difficult to read the early church fathers and believe they held the Lord's Supper as a memorial.

 

[Markie Boy]

That's what I run into - the ECF's all seem to hold a view of real presence. Justin Martyr especially.

I find it odd that Calvin believed in the Real Presence - yet so many Calvinists today (lot's of Baptists) - have dropped that.

 

[JM]

That's what I run into - the ECF's all seem to hold a view of real presence. Justin Martyr especially.

I find it odd that Calvin believed in the Real Presence - yet so many Calvinists today (lot's of Baptists) - have dropped that.

Calvin was a student of the Father's and quotes them liberally throughout the Institutes. Beza, Calvin's successor also held to throughout receptionist view of the real presence but the belief seems to have fell away during the puritan movement in England.

 

[RileyG]

I'm confused. Lutherans don't believe in Apostolic Succession? Forgive my ignorance.

God bless you

 

[JM]

I'm confused. Lutherans don't believe in Apostolic Succession? Forgive my ignorance.

God bless you

Some have apostolic succession but LCMS does not believe it is divinely ordained or mandated by God.

 

[David Kent]

The French word for priest is sacrificateur someone, one who offers sacrifices.

When Jesus said "This is my body" did he have his actual body in his hand?

 

[JM]

The French word for priest is sacrificateur someone, one who offers sacrifices.

When Jesus said "This is my body" did he have his actual body in his hand?

Yes, Jesus was present in the Bread and Wine when He held it in His hands.

 

[David Kent]

Yes, Jesus was present in the Bread and Wine when He held it in His hands.

So there were two Jesus' at the same time?

 

[JM]

So there were two Jesus' at the same time?

Haha, sorry, we are not Nestorian. Humanity and Divinity are united, in Christ.

See also idomaticum, maiestaticum and apotelesmaticum for more information.

 

[David Kent]

Haha, sorry, we are not Nestorian. Humanity and Divinity are united, in Christ.

See also idomaticum, maiestaticum and apotelesmaticum for more information.

But if he had his own body in his hand it must have been a different body.

So Roman Catholics, in the mass have many Jesus' as they have one each.

 

[JM]

But if he had his own body in his hand it must have been a different body.

So Roman Catholics, in the mass have many Jesus' as they have one each.

Christ has two natures.

Jesus's human Body and Blood received the Divine attributes of omnipresence and omnipotence and remains true God and man allowing Him to be present in the Supper. There are different modes of being which we moderns simply cannot grasp with our materialistic thinking.

“The one body of Christ has three different modes, or all three modes, of being at any given place. [First,] The comprehensible, corporeal mode of presence, as when he walked bodily on earth and vacated or occupied space according to his size. … Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space but penetrates every creature, wherever he wills. … He employed this mode of presence … in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. … Thirdly, since He is one person with God, the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all creatures are indeed much more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode.”