Question on Doctrine/tradition

[Simon_Templar]

Okay.. I have been thinking about this one for a while.. and I know the tradition on it, and the doctrine etc.. what I want to know is why, the reasoning behind it and the source.

Why did the church come to this conclusion, does it have biblical basis? what is its source in tradition? etc

Okay.. what I'm wondering about is the fact that only a priest or bishop can consecrate the eucharist.


In marriage the bride and groom are *technically* the ministers of the sacrament.

In baptism, anyone can technically administer the sacrament.

Absolution is reserved to bishops and priests because it was specificly given to them as an authority by Christ himself in the gospels.

Annointing the sick similarly was attributed to the eldership by Paul in his epistles.

So what about consecrating the eucharist?

[gtsecc]

The most detailed answer is going to be found in Dix's Shape of the Liturgy. He goes over this in detail.

[gtsecc]

Basically, there are multiple jewish and early Christian celebrations, which are not Eucharists, and were presided over by Laiety. Eucharistic services were always done by the Apostiles, and then Bishops. I believe Priests came about in the 2nd century.

[gtsecc]

I am reading, Eucharist, Bishop, Church, and it also covers thsi issue. However, I just started it. I will report back with info. as it becomes available.

[Aymn27]

Basically, there are multiple jewish and early Christian celebrations, which are not Eucharists, and were presided over by Laiety. Eucharistic services were always done by the Apostiles, and then Bishops. I believe Priests came about in the 2nd century.
I honestly think that is a bogus theory perpetuated by those who refuse to acknowledge the priesthood of all believers as equally valid as their own self-created heirarchy...

[Simon_Templar]

I honestly think that is a bogus theory perpetuated by those who refuse to acknowledge the priesthood of all believers as equally valid as their own self-created heirarchy...
well, both bishops and priests are mentioned in the bible (overseers and elders). However, they appear to be used somewhat interchangably. In otherwords they appear to be refrencing the same 'rank' or the same person.

It would appear that as early as 100 AD or there abouts (which is only about 30-40 years after the NT was penned, and the active ministry of all the apostles) there was a recognized difference between bishops and priests in that there was one priest who was appointed to oversee the other priests. According to Jerome this was done largely to maintain unity and avoid heresy. The Bishops purpose was to essentially keep all the other priests in line and secure the pure transmission of the apostle's doctrine.

So the heirarchy itself existed either during the lifetime of the apostles, OR it was instituted immediately after the apostles. In either case it is pretty reasonable to believe that it was left in place by the apostles to ensure the governance of the church and the preservation of doctrinal orthodoxy, and unity.

that however, doesn't answer the question of why only priests and bishops have the authority to consecrate the eucharist.

[SirTimothy]

Well, personally, I don't believe it. I would quite happily celebrate. But then, I'm one of those evangelical liberals... :doh: :doh:

Timothy

[DeoJuvante]

Well, personally, I don't believe it. I would quite happily celebrate. But then, I'm one of those evangelical liberals... :doh: :doh:

Timothy

'Evangelical liberals' - I didn't realise those two words could go together.

[gtsecc]

I honestly think that is a bogus theory perpetuated by those who refuse to acknowledge the priesthood of all believers as equally valid as their own self-created heirarchy...
hey man - go ahead. Refute it. But until you read some sort of history such as Dix's or Zizioulas, you will look like a fool.