The apostate church, in order to establish the claim of the hierarchy, seeks to prove that the apostles were granted three "priestly powers." Reasoning from their assumption that the modern priests are successors to the apostles, they then claim for them these special powers. We shall examine these claims as given in the booklet "The Priesthood: A Divine Institution."
It was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, when after consecrating the elements of bread and wine into the Holy Eucharist, He said to the Apostles: "Do ye this for a commemoration of me." (Luke 22:19) The Council of Trent declares: "If anyone says that by these words: 'Do ye this for a commemoration of me,' that Christ did not constitute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."
At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the New Law according to the order of Melchisedech, fulfilled the promise which He had previously made to the Apostles, that He would give them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. He instituted as a permanent and official act of worship the Eucharistic Sacrifice which He had just offered. In commanding the Apostles to do what He had just done. He gave them the power which that act entails, namely, the power to consecrate. In authorizing them to offer the self-same Sacrifice which He had instituted, Christ made the Apostles and their successors the sharers of His eternal priesthood.
By the expression "consecrating the elements of bread and wine into the Holy Eucharist" the writer means according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine were changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. The Council of Trent, to which reference is made, says, "Canon I.--If any one shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign, or in a figure, or virtually--let him be accursed."
I deny that the bread and fruit of the vine were the literal flesh and blood of our Lord, when he instituted the memorial, for the simple reason that he was standing there in the flesh, and with the blood still in His body, when he gave the elements to the apostles. Since "blood is the life of the flesh," then if the elements were actually His body and blood, there were two Christs present at the final Supper--one a literal, living Christ, the other a dead Christ. But an anathema is pronounced upon one who denies that the soul of Christ is not actually in "the Eucharist." If "the soul and divinity of Christ" were "truly and really contained in the sacraments" they could not at the same time be truly and really contained in his body standing before the apostles. But a body is dead when the soul is not in it, therefore the living Christ would have had to be dead, and the dead Christ would have had to be living.
But both Jesus and the apostles refer to the elements in the same fashion after "consecration" as before. In Matthew 26:27, 29, "He took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it, all of you'...I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Paul declared that he received of the Lord the information he delivered to the Corinthian congregation relative to the Lord's Supper. He declared that Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body which is for you." Yet in 1 Corinthians 11:26, 27, 28 the apostle shows that what was eaten was still bread and not flesh.
The Council of Trent is cited as authority for the idea that by the expression "Do ye this for a commemoration of me," Christ constituted the apostles priests to offer His body and blood. We reject the resolution of this council as having no authority whatsoever. Since the work of the Council of Trent was not concluded until 1563, when its decrees were ratified by Pope Pius IV, that council came 1500 years too late to carry any weight with the true children of God.
But do the words of Christ imply that he was commissioning a special priesthood to offer an unbloody sacrifice? Far from it. The Lord's Supper is a feast, not a sacrifice; it is observed at a table, not an altar; it is eaten, not offered up; it is a communion of a congregation of priests, not an oblation of priests for a congregation. Jesus did not tell the apostles when he ordained the feast "I appoint unto you an altar at which you may officiate," but he did say at that time "As my Father hath appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" (Luke 22:30). The apostle Paul in connection with the teaching about the Lord's Supper, declares, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (1 Cor. 10:21). We conclude then that the expression "Do this in remembrance of me" does not refer to official authority to sacrifice at an altar, but to the partaking at a festal board of those emblems of our Lord's sacrifice once for all. As proof of this interpretation of the words of our Lord, we cite the fact that Paul delivers the same charge to the whole congregation, and explains them by saying, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). Thus our Lord meant that we should all eat and drink in memory of Him, and that is all He meant. It is here that the decretals of the Council of Trent and the whole philosophy of Romish priestcraft come tumbling down.
Dr. O'Brien, following the regular line of argument used by the Romanists through the years declares that at the last supper, Jesus fulfilled the prior promise to the apostles that He would give them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. This is a direct reference to the teaching of our Lord as recorded in John, chapter six, and which the Catholic Church makes applicable to "the Eucharist."
Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:52-56). Our Lord did not here refer to the commemorative supper, as we shall demonstrate.
It must be agreed by all that the language employed must be accepted as literal or figurative. The Catholic position is that it is literal in import. If this be true, no Catholics except the priests have life, for Jesus said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink of his blood, you have no life in you," and the common members are not allowed to drink the cup. Their reply is that the blood is in the wafer, but if it is, they cannot drink it, for when they have finished the act of eating there is nothing left of the wafer. And if the blood of Christ is in the wafer, why does the priest drink the cup? Jesus affirms that he who eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life and will be raised by Him at the last day. If this is to be taken literally, then all who partake of "the Eucharist" will be saved, a thing which Rome denies.
But the context demonstrates that the expression is used figuratively, and has to do with digesting the doctrine and imbibing the spiritual system of teaching, of our Lord. On the previous day, Jesus had fed a multitude of five thousand with two fish and five barley loaves taken from a lad, and the miracle had so affected the people they were about to take Him by force and coronate Him as king. Jesus withdrew, and crossed the sea to Capernaum. The multitude followed Him, expecting to be fed again the next day. Jesus told them that they had sought Him, not because of His power, but because they ate their fill of the loaves. He exhorted them to "not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you."
The hungry mob, still anxious for further food, asked for a miracle such as Moses performed saying, "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" When Jesus pointed out the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world, they asked to be fed by such bread always. Then comes a significant statement. Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35). Thus, the hunger is satisfied by coming to Christ; the thirst is satisfied by believing in Christ. Eating the flesh of the Son of man is equivalent to embracing His tenets; drinking the blood of the Son of man is equivalent to trustful obedience to His will.
That this is a correct view is demonstrated by an occurrence after the lesson delivered in the Capernaum synagogue. Many of his own disciples, not comprehending the spiritual bearing of his message, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" Jesus said, "Do you take offense at this?...It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail, the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life" (6:61-63). Thus, the expression "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" means simply that he who comes to Christ, and believes on Him, in obedience to His word, is made a partaker of His life, i.e., of His flesh and blood. Again the priestly thesis breaks down.
Our Lord did not institute as a permanent and official act of worship "the Eucharist sacrifice which he had just offered." He instituted a festal table at which every child of God would eat until His return. It is not true that "In commanding the apostles to do what He had just done. He gave them the power of consecration." He merely instructed them to eat and drink in memory of His death. Note too, that all who received the bread, received the cup. Jesus did not at the final supper "authorize them to offer the self-same sacrifice" or any other sacrifice. He ordered them instead to eat and drink at His table- -the very opposite of sacrifice. Thus, Rome loses her argument for the first of "three priestly powers." She will lose the others as well.
Christ completed the communication of His priesthood to the Apostles, when a few days later, He conferred upon them the other strictly sacerdotal power of forgiving gins. On that first Easter Christ appeared to His Apostles and said to them: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them: and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:21, 23)
The Apostles regarded themselves henceforth as ministers of reconciliation. Thus St. Paul writes to the Corinthians: "God hath reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation...For Christ, therefore, we are ambassadors; God, as it were, exhorting through us." (II Cor. 5:18-20) In other words God sends Christ to reconcile sinners; Christ sends us. We are His ambassadors of mercy to sinful men, divinely commissioned to cleanse and heal them.
The statement of our Lord is plain, unequivocal and positive. It is undeniable that he gave the apostles the right, privilege or authority to forgive sins. But notice that he did not tell them at the same time how they were to do it. This does not mean we cannot know how they were to accomplish it, for our Lord told them they would receive the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all things. We need only consult the record of their acts thus to know how they were to forgive and retain sins.
There are but three ways of forgiveness for sins mentioned in the New Testament, as follows: (1) Actual forgiveness; (2) Declared forgiveness; (3) Legislative forgiveness. If we can determine which of these the apostles taught and practiced, after having received the Holy Spirit which was to guide them into all truth, we shall know what our Lord meant when He said, "Whose sins you remit, they shall be remitted."
Did the apostles claim to have the power to actually forgive sins? Instead of making such a claim, they taught the very opposite. When Simon attempted to purchase the gift of God with money, Peter said unto him, "Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you" (Acts 8:22). If Peter believed in the power of absolution as taught in the Romish "sacrament of penance" he could have demonstrated it here. Instead, he pointed to God as the only one who could actually forgive sins. John declared, "If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1). This is far different than saying, "If any man sin we have the sacrament of penance." Rome says that a certain form of absolution is essential and must be pronounced, but nowhere do the apostles make any such allegation. They deny by their practice that Jesus conferred upon them the power to actually forgive sins. This belongs exclusively to God.
Did the apostles exercise a declarative power of forgiveness? That our Lord possessed such power while on earth is quite easily demonstrated. When a certain paralytic was brought to him, he said to the cripple, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven" (Matt. 9:2). When the scribes who observed this act of mercy said among themselves that Christ was blaspheming, Jesus perceiving their thoughts said, "Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins," he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, take up your bed and go home." When the crowds saw the man do this, they were afraid, and glorified God who had given such authority to men. Did the apostles have the same authority? Did the statement that they could remit sins, confer the ability to declare such sins remitted as was the case with Christ? If so, the New Testament is absolutely silent about it, and with no testimony on the matter, we can neither affirm nor believe it.
Since there are but three methods of forgiveness revealed in the New Testament, and since the apostles did not employ either of the first two, it is a compelling conclusion that our Savior referred to legislative forgiveness in His statement to them. This means that the apostles were to reveal a law, by compliance with which, the guilty sinner would receive actual forgiveness from God for sins committed. The apostle Paul declares, "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). From this we learn that we are set free from sin by a law. "You who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17, 18). Freedom from sin is not obtained by an "absolve te" pronounced by a priest but by obedience to the standard of teaching.
Rome has much to say about Peter. Let us notice the plan by which this apostle proposed remission of sins to the guilty ones on the day of Pentecost. When they demanded to know what to do, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins'" (Acts 2:38). Here is the first announcement of the law by which forgiveness of sins may be secured. It is not by an exercise of sacerdotal authority, but by compliance with the terms specified by the apostle, speaking under the influence of the Spirit.
The priestly advocate quotes 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, to make it appear that the ministry of reconciliation is manifest in a sacerdotal power to absolve, but a close examination of the previous chapter will disclose that the apostles "having this ministry by the grace of God...by the open statement of truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:1-3). It is by a statement of the truth, by the proclamation of the glad tidings, and by an acceptance of the terms conveyed by heaven that the sins are remitted. No man possesses the authority to actually or declaratively forgive sins. The second pillar supporting the theory of a special priesthood is thus torn from its moorings. Surely that theory is built upon the sand. Now let us proceed to consideration of the third alleged support.
The third great power which Christ conferred upon His priests is that of preaching the gospel with authority. While this is not so distinctively a sacerdotal power as that of celebrating Mass or of forgiving sins, it is nevertheless a mark of divine delegation which sets them off from the laity. This power of teaching in His name Christ conferred upon His first priests when He said to them: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations...teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:19, 20).
The right of the priests to preach the gospel with authority entails upon the laity the correlative obligation in the following explicit manner: "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16)
We have seen that such a "distinctively sacerdotal power as that of celebrating mass or of forgiving sins" was not conferred upon men as Rome teaches, and now we shall learn that "preaching the gospel with authority" is not "a mark of divine legislation which sets them (priests) off from the laity." In a previous chapter we have shown that all of God's people (laity)are a part of the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9, 10). Instead of divine legislation setting priests apart from the laity, it was divine legislation which made no distinction. God made men and women; Satan made clergymen, and clergymen make laymen!
It is true that our Lord gave the commission to the apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The means of enrolling such students is found in the kindred statement, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15). God never commissions a man to do anything without either supernaturally qualifying him to do it, or providing a means by which he may qualify himself naturally to do it. It would be foolish to assume that God would commission a man to do that which was absolutely impossible to accomplish, then condemn him for not doing it. Since the apostles were directly commissioned to teach all nations, it was necessary that they be endued with the ability to speak in the language of every creature. That they were so qualified to be witnesses "unto the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8) is evident from the fact that on the day of their original proclamation, they "began to speak in other tongues" so that "devout men from every nation under heaven" each heard them speaking in his own language, or native dialect (Acts 2:4-8). No one can directly operate under "the great commission" today. This commission was given to "witnesses" (Luke 24:46-48). A witness is one who testifies to facts with which he is conversant. No one today can bear the testimony of these apostles. We can assert our faith in their testimony, and we may re-proclaim that which they testified, but their testimony was as peculiarly their own as their commission to announce it to the world. They fulfilled that commission and accomplished their task, consequently had no successors to their office.
The relationship of the apostles to the church was not personal but official, and in this relationship they were to continue to the end of the world. The office of the apostles is still in the church, else it has no foundation. All Christians on earth, all members of the household of God are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). The apostles are even now in authority, for our Lord said, "When the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). The apostles occupy that position of authority in the kingdom of Christ. "As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 21:28).
The commission was not given to the twelve as disciples, but as apostles. They fulfilled it by announcing the terms of reconciliation to the entire world, then sealed their testimony with their blood. But there is a difference in the basis of persecution of an ordinary martyr and an apostle. The first dies because he believes what he has heard; the other because he knows what he has seen. Our Lord said to Paul, "I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things which you have seen, and to those in which I will appear to you" (Acts 26:16). When the apostles personally completed their work of giving to the world as ambassadors of the Great King, the terms of the treaty in full, the commission was accomplished. They have no successors in office, not simply because no one today can possess the miraculous powers which they needed to confirm their testimony, but because their work of apostleship was completed.
Men now must obtain faith through the testimony of the apostles, just as they did while the apostles were alive. If disputes arise in the congregations we must still "go up to consult the apostles" about the matter. Their revelation is still the criterion by which to measure every act of spiritual significance. Jesus is with them to the end of the age, by maintaining the authority of their teaching, while this world stands. It is true the men are dead but their authoritative teaching remains and we must continue as steadfastly "in the apostles' doctrine" today as on the birthday of the church. When the rich man in Hades besought Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers lest they also come into torment, Abraham said, "They have Moses and the prophets: let them hear them" (Luke 16:29). Moses and the prophets had been dead for hundreds of years. In what sense did they have them? The reply must be in their authoritative utterances as recorded in the Old Covenant. In the same sense we have the apostles in their authoritative record of the New Covenant.
No one is an authoritative proclaimer today as were the apostles. The commission to the apostles is indivisibly connected with miraculous power. After Jesus upbraided the apostles "for their unbelief" (Mark 16:14) he gave them the commission to "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." To strengthen them in the tremendous task involved he continues "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick; and they will recover." To prove that this was connected with the commission as given, the context shows that "they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it" (Mark 16:20). He who operates under authority of the great commission today, should be called upon for his miraculous credentials.
That Rome believes in miracles we do not deny, but that she does not believe that every parish priest possesses power to work miracles is evidenced from the lengthy examination she prosecutes to determine if "miracles" were performed as a prelude to canonization, and the few priests who are designated as saints. Those who claim to be successors to the apostles are convicted as usurpers. Every child of God has a divine right to reproclaim the good news; no one has a right to proclaim it authoritatively. This was reserved for the chosen ambassadors, the holy apostles, and their office has no successors because it was never abdicated. The statement "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me" was made to the twelve and to them alone. It has no application to an arrogant assumptionist who today calls himself "father" in direct antithesis to the teaching of our blessed Lord.