Ministers of the Miracles

Paolo Veronese’s The Wedding at Cana (1563)

Have you ever wondered how to understand the Sacraments? Don’t they take away from Christ’s power? Are they biblical, or just a resuscitated form of pagan magic? To be quite frank, if you don’t understand the Sacraments, you don’t understand the Incarnation or Jesus Christ. There’s a lot that can be said on the subject, but I say a little (especially in regards to the Eucharist) over at Catholic Answers.  Here’s a taste:

Jesus frequently worked his miracles through others. Take the wedding at Cana, for example. As far as we can tell, Jesus never touches the water or the wine or the jugs. Instead, Mary asks Jesus for the miracle, and then tells the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). Jesus then instructs them, and they do as they’re told.

It’s still Jesus working the miracle, of course. As John says, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (John 2:11). We might describe the servants as “ministers of the miracle.” They perform the miracle but not of their own power. Or Jesus performs the miracle through them.

Jesus works the same way in the sacraments. After he tells Nicodemus that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), Jesus and the disciples go to Judea; there “he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). Even though “Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples,” nevertheless, the Evangelist can say that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John” (John 4:1-2).

That’s also why the people John the Baptist baptized were rebaptized (since his baptism was symbolic and didn’t impart the Holy Spirit: see Acts 19:1-7), but the people Judas baptized weren’t. As St. Augustine said, “those whom John baptized, John baptized; those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized.”

The disciples are ministers of the sacramental miracle. That’s the whole basis of the Catholic understanding of the sacraments. They work, not because of the holiness—at best imperfect, at worst nonexistent—of the sacramental minister but because of the holiness of Christ himself, the one at work through the minister.

Read on… 

….and then let me know what you think here in the comments!

13 comments

  1. It seems that in many aspects of the faith, and especially with the sacraments, that Jesus is reinforcing the fundamental precept from Genesis: “It is not good for man to be alone” [Genesis 2:18]

    This is to say, that as we are not capable of physically or spiritually surviving by ourselves without the aid and cooperation of others ( …as angels might be?), that Jesus is reinforcing this truth through the establishment of all the sacraments that Joe details above. So, the sacraments are a means by which the followers of Christ might be integrated with each other so as not to be left ‘alone’ in the spiritual life, as we might find with people who think that they might only need a Bible to satisfy all of their spiritual needs.

    Moreover, the teaching of Christ where He says: “where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” [Matthew 18:20] …also reinforces this idea, that it is not ideal that people are physically alone in their faith life, but that there is inherent spiritual value to be had with the presence of other Christians and the spiritual gifts that they provide by their physical presence.

    The Lord again teaches: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.” [John 14:2]. And this again signifies that people are to be close together and highly integrated; because as everyone knows, a ‘mansion’ is not designed for a solitary person, but for many persons to abide in. So, again, it indicates the necessity and reality of a holy society (Church), and not just a person abiding alone with his own personal faith or spiritual thoughts..again, as we might find with a Christian who thinks that he and his Bible (alone) are sufficient for a thriving spiritual life.

    In all of these teachings we can see that it is particularly the Catholic Church that has for 2000 years followed and promulgated all of these social precepts, customs and sacraments that Christ has left for us. This can compare to some types of Protestant sects or denominations that promote a differing social hermeneutic that allows for a man to be spiritually satisfied without the necessity of having other Christians physically around him, and such as we might find in television broadcast type churches that promote the idea that watching TV is equal to having the physical presence of other Christians in close proximity for prayer and worship purposes. This might actually be one aberrant fruit, or off shoot, of the doctrine of ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’. But Jesus teaches that almost nothing regarding His Holy Church is ‘alone’, as is demonstrated in the quotes above, and as has been practiced through the millennia in the Catholic Church via it’s holy sacraments and holy liturgies.

  2. In regards to the comment above above ‘Protestants’ being alone with their Bible, is just not true. On the contrary, we enjoy deep, enriching relationships with one another, as we study together, eat together, and worship together. We come together under the authority of God’s Word. We don’t forsake the assembling of ourselves together. The Catholic Church has not been around for 2000 years, perhaps 1600 years, it became corrupted in the days when Constantine came to power. The Catholic Church thrives on a sacramental religion fit for the depraved heart of man. Take away all those unbiblical sacraments away and you take the life right out of the power structure that is Rome. They teach ‘another gospel’ as the Apostle Paul said. A works salvation, even though they have devised a way to make it look as though it’s not of works, but it is. Satan is a crafty one indeed. But I hope those who hear the voice of God, come out from her. Look unto to Christ, and trust in Him alone, He is sufficent for everything the sinner needs, and more!

    1. Hi Scott,

      Baptism is a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament, and holy ordinations are a sacrament. All are commanded in the New Testament. The practice of these sacraments is found in detail in the early Church, well before the time of Constantine. The comment that I made above was to highlight that Jesus is the one who established and commanded these sacraments, and seemingly for the purpose of keeping His Church united in the Kingdom that He established. Nevertheless, He is the inventor of the sacraments, and the Catholic Church was faithful, and is still faithful, in fulfilling what the Lord taught the Church to do before a New Testament was ever compiled.

      This is to say, that the sacraments came first, and the compiling of scripture came second. Scripture is only scripture because such writings were read in the Churches during the weekly Eucharistic liturgies of the Early Church. Other Christian literature that was NOT read in the early Churches, before Constantine, and so, did not become sacred scripture. Eusebius’ “Church history” details such New Testament history as to how the Church distinguished what was scripture and what was not.

      Regarding the importance of the practice of the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, there is plenty of evidence in early Church literature regarding it’s practice. The Didache, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr all include many details of it’s practice from the earliest Christian times. Here is a sample:

      1. “On the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations. [Malachi 1:11]” ( Didache)

      2. “Do not let anyone eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For the statement of the Lord applies here also: Do not give to dogs what is holy.” (Didache)

      3. From Ignatius of Antioch:

      “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

      “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

      “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

      -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

      “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

      -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

      “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

      -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

      4. From St. Justin Martyr:

      “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

      “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

      “God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

      “Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

      Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”

      -“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

      ************************************************************

      Note also, how none of these writings occurred after the time of Constantine, but were from centuries before him. Moreover, Constantine really shouldn’t be criticized by Christians, as he was responsible for legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire. On the contrary, he should be recognized and should be praised for what he did back then…such as putting an end to hundreds of years of Christian martyrdoms and persecution.

      Best to you.

    2. Dear Scott. You do not worship God as Jesus taught His followers to worship God. You worship God as your protestant progenitors wrongly taught you to worship God – which is really no worship at all.

      “The Risen Christ has passed over into the sacraments” is the Catholic way of summarising what the sacramental System established by Jesus Christ consists of.

      It is in and through the Sacramental System that one may attain unto Sanctification and Salvation.

      The protestants heretics deprived their followers of that which Jesus established and the thanks of their followers for doing that have never ceased.

      “Thank you for depriving me of the means to Sanctification and Salvation” might well be a Protestant hymn worthy of composition…

  3. Greetings AW,

    Yes, those two sacraments are established by the Lord, Baptism & The Lord’s Supper. That we can agree upon, however, we will disagree in the way you are told to believe those doctrines by the Catholic Church. So I guess I should’ve made clear which ones I disagreed with. Yes the early Fathers all believed in the Eucharist, however they differed widely on how one views the Eucharist. I have to agree with the majority that I have read in that it was symbolic. But that’s just secondary support. Primarily, the Scriptures prove that without a doubt. So I believe Rome to be wrong here, along with Mary, and other doctrines, that I find have non Biblical support.

    1. Hi Scott,

      We can thank God for the gift of the internet, because we have access to primary sources of information from Christian history. Back in the middle ages, when Protestantism were being proposed, the masses had no such access to ancient literature to help them make their judgements, and so they needed to rely on their local teachers, be they Protestant or Catholic.

      But, even as we must trust much of the history that we find in the Old Testament, so too must we trust the history of Early Christianity, even though much of it it is not included in sacred scripture. And this is because Jesus said: “…there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” [Matthew 11:11]

      This is to say, with a teaching of Jesus such as this: Why should we trust the history and teachings in the Old Testament MORE than the history and teachings of the Early Christian Church, considering that the spirituality and quality of the servants of God are defined by Jesus to be GREATER in the Christian period as compared to those ancient saints and prophets of the O.T.? It would make Jesus’ statement absurd. The early Christians should be, therefore, MORE credible than anything we find in the O.T. because they are greater ( as Jesus said) than all the O.T prophets, including Moses and Elijah . So, really, we should have faith in the Early Church because of these facts, and be skeptical of anyone who proposes that there was some great apostasy or heresy that happened in the first 500 years of Christianity ( Such as the Mormons do).

      Rather, we should try to realize that the Church existed in and extremely chaotic time in those early centuries, and that they needed to adapt as the Holy Spirit guided them. We see this in the Acts of the Apostles, and the institution of the ‘diaconate’, and also the replacement of the apostle Judas. These we decisions that the Church made back then, and they were new and guided by the Holy spirit. But it continued afterwards in the same manner….and continues to this very day, also.

      We read also in the Book of Revelation, that the Church was highly imperfect, but that Jesus was still patient with them in their imperfections and sins. And then, shortly after, about 15 years later we read the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and also St. Polycarp, who was a successor of the Bishop of Smyrna…one of the Churches included in the first 3 chapters of Revelations. And moreover, we have a great history written by Eusebius, in about 320 AD. Are we to think that these martyrs and historians were demonic inspired frauds? This is a pretty wild thought, after you actually read their writings.

      What I’m saying is that we must be very patient, and really try to figure out what happened back then, in the early centuries; and then realize that The Early Church actually did a pretty good job of converting the ancient world back then (ie…are we doing a better job now?). And it’s also not good to take 16th century teachings and just throw away all the history that happened between AD 100 and Martin Luther. There is just too much great history that happened in those 15 centuries that just cannot be tossed out, because it was really the founding of our current Western Civilization.

      So, there is a lot to study in those 1500 years, and it’s probably very unwise to follow anybody(Catholic or Protestant) who say’s those years were worthless, or dominated by demonic heresies or apostasies. Rather, it is good to read the writings of people like:

      1. Bernard of Clairaux in 1150 AD:

      https://www.pathsoflove.com/bernard/songofsongs/contents.htmlhttps://www.pathsoflove.com/bernard/songofsongs/contents.html

      2. St. Bede in 750 AD.:

      https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/bede-book1.asp

      3. St. Clement of Alexandria 225 AD.:

      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

      And….

      4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem and his catechetical lectures

      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm

      These are just a few. But by studying such authors we can be more capable of making an accurate assessment of Early Christianity, as these were some of the leaders of the Church back in their respective centuries.

      After reading from many Fathers and leaders of the Church over the first 1500 years it is easier to see how Martin Luther and John Calvin fit into their company; that is, where they agree, and where they differ in their theological perspectives. Anyway, at least we have the internet to easily conduct such a study.

      And, in all of this we become much wiser Christians.

      Best to you.

    2. Hi Scott,

      I am interested in which early Fathers that you have read that viewed the Eucharist as symbolic. Can you list just a few of them.

      Thanks

      Duane

    3. “The Catholic Church has not been around for 2000 years, perhaps 1600 years, it became corrupted in the days when Constantine came to power.”

      If that is the case, then why be Christian at all? Your assertion makes Jesus Christ a liar, for the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church if a mere man such as Constantine (or some other Ancient authority figure) can corrupt it.

      If The Catholic Church hasn’t been around for 2000 years, what other “thing” was around before such time as you claim it became corrupt? What were their beliefs? What documentation can you provide to support their beliefs? I’ve looked through the historical records, and the Church is more or less unified until the Great Schism, and then the Protestant Reformation a few centuries later.

      As the other poster suggests, I strongly suggest you read St. Ignatius of Antioch, that Saint was one of the biggest influences on my Conversion to the Catholic Church.

      I used to believe almost exactly what you profess today.

      St. Ignatius of Antioch knew the man St. John, and therefore his interpretation of the Gospel (and teachings, especially the Eucharist) of St. John should be held as definitive over everyone else’s interpretations. St. Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist to such a degree that he willingly died for it. It would seem silly to die for a mere symbol.

      “I have to agree with the majority that I have read in that it was symbolic”

      But Jesus’ own words in the original Koine Greek are not symbolic. The people whom Jesus spoke to took it as literal “Flesh and Blood” that was to be eaten and drunk and they left Him because of that belief. Why didn’t Jesus correct them as he did Nicodemus who took Jesus literally on being “born again”?

      “So I believe Rome to be wrong here, along with Mary, and other doctrines, that I find have non Biblical support.”

      Go one step further: Where are you getting your authority for the Bible? Without the Catholic Church which compiled the Scriptures, and Catholic monks who made copies of the Scriptures down through the centuries you wouldn’t even have “The Bible” as you know it.

      You cannot separate The Bible from the Institution which gave it to the world, anymore than you can separate Jesus Christ from the Mother who gave Him to the World.

    4. To eat somebody’s body and to drink somebody’s blood in the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus is symbolic speech referring to persecution and assault:
      See Isaias 9:18-20
      Ps 26:2
      Isaias 49:26
      Micah 3:3
      2 Kings 23:17

      etc etc

      IF Jesus was speaking symbolically, He was teaching his disciples and others in the crowds following Hm that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him

      Even as one instinctively knows that it is wrong to buy a Hoodie as a birthday present for a Unicorn, one instinctively knows that Jesus was not teaching the way to eternal life is to be gained by persecuting and assaulting Him.

  4. Hi Scott,

    How the Early Fathers viewed the Eucharist can be understood by the way they conducted liturgies in the first few centuries. And, that they used basilica’s with altars installed in them is also significant. Moreover, if you google “canons of the Synod of Alvira” you can get an idea of how the Fathers viewed ‘excommunication” which is the depriving a person of Holy Communion for variety reasons. So, there are a lot of ways that the practices and customs of the ancient Church can shed light on what the same early Church believed about the spiritual necessity of receiving Holy Communion.

    We can thank God that we live at a time when we can access this history so easily, with only a few clicks of the mouse.

    Best to you.

  5. ABS is surprised there was no opposition to his claim that Protestants do not worship God.

    Nonetheless, the claim is true. From The Catholic Dictionary:

    WORSHIP. Acknowledgment of another’s worth, dignity, or superior position. In religion, worship is given either to God, and then it is adoration, or to the angels and saints, and it is called veneration. Divine worship actually includes three principal acts, namely adoration (or the recognition of God’s infinite perfection), prayer or the asking for divine help, and sacrifice or the offering of something precious to God. Worship as veneration also has three principal forms, whereby the angels and saints are honored for their sanctity, asked to intercede before the divine Majesty, and imitated in their love and service of God. (Etym. Old English weorthscipe, honor, dignity, reverence: weorth, worth +ship.)

    There are four aspects of sacrifice in the Holocaust of The Mass;

    1. The holocaust as a sacrifice offered to God witnessing to His sovereign greatness

    2. The sacrifice of propitiation offered to God to appease His Justice irritated against us by our uncountable numbers of sin

    3. The sacrifice of Impetration offered to implore His bounty

    4. The Eucharistic sacrifice offered to thank Him for His bounty

    Protestants have

    No apostolic succession

    No Holy Orders

    No sacrifices of The Mass

    No church

    Thus, they have no worship because they reject the doctrines of Christ who taught men how to worship God

  6. Hi Scott,

    I was a Calvinist so I understand why you say those Catholic doctrines are unbiblical. I later
    came to realize that the problem isn’t with what the church teaches, it was with my limited understanding of what the church teaches. Calvinists start with the a priori assumption that the reformed interpretation is infallible. That the reformed interpretation is “the biblical doctrine of justification”. Scott, if there is an interpretation that is more Christ centered and fits with all of Scripture and all of salvation history better than the reformed view would you want to know?

    Duane asked a good question.

    It’s easy to find quotes in the church fathers that sound Protestant. Calvin claimed that Augustine is “wholly ours” in regards to the Eucharist.

    Keith Mathison wrote on the Ligonier website, “Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God”.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church also uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist. But no one would say that Calvin followed the Catholic view.
    .
    The truth is that Agustine was no Proto-Protestant. His views are fully Catholic when his writings are read in their context. Augustine and the Catholic Church acknowledge the “both/and” aspects found in scripture. There is a sign and symbol aspect. And there is also real flesh and blood as our Lord said.

    In addition to mentioning the term “sign” and “symbol” St. Augustine also believed that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ and that it is a sin if we don’t adore the consecrated host.

    Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

    Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

    [Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403} “

    Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

    He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

    Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

    What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

    Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

    The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

    “And he was carried in his own hands.” But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: “This is My Body.” For He carried that Body in His hands. -St. Augustine

    A Protestant basically has two options. Declare that Augustine was wrong when he said these things. Or ask more questions and seek to understand if there is a biblical basis for what he said. If you chose the latter, you are in a good place here to get answers.

  7. One of you informed me that Christ used “hyperbole” when he said, “Thou shalt call no man father, for one is thy Father in Heaven”, and that this purported fact somehow justifies calling the Bishop of Rome “the Holy Father”.

    Now, I have read the Gospels many times and cannot recall noticing that Christ ever used hyperbole [hy·per·bo·le, /hīˈpərbəlē/, “exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally”], but perhaps your theologians can discern these things?

    Christ certainly spoke in metaphor many times, and as no one has ever to my knowledge tasted blood when taking the communion wine, what conclusion is possible but that He spoke metaphorically when He said, “This is my body….this is my blood”?

    Or are we to believe that the bread and wine become flesh and blood when well down the oesophagus?

    When He said, “take up your cross and follow me”, did He mean that all believers would crucified?

    Or “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God”; did that mean we were all to ploughmen and ladies?

    More to the point, other than the apparent impossibility of admitting error, and thereby admitting fallibility (how ludicrous that anyone should ever deny it!), what reason is there for clinging to this? Is the blood of Christ of less effect? Is Holy Communion of less power and import? Prove it I say.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.