 |
|
“The priesthood is in trouble”. [1] These are the opening words of Charles Meyer in Man of God: A Study of the Priesthood written in 1974. The intention of this book was to reflect on where the Church was heading due to the shortage of priests and the unattractive state of priesthood given the few, who have as he puts it; “cheapened the priestly calling in the eyes of many”. [2] A question that has been on the lips of many for a very long time is what does it mean to be a priest? Many years earlier in 1957 Monsignor Pierre Veuillot asked this same question and cites an 1899 extract from Depuis Le Jour by Leo XIII who describes the times as “sad” and the “future even more sombre and threatening” hence the urgent need for “apostolic zeal”. [3]
The aim of this essay is to explore the sacrament of ordination to priesthood through history and to comment on significant theological and liturgical developments. Tillard refers to this exploring of history in relation to Jesus Christ and ministry as a “covenant of memories” on two planes. [4] These planes are remembering “what was done in the past” and “what is promised for the future”. [5] Hence, in this essay I hope that my ‘remembering of the past’ will shed some light on the present while pointing to the hope of the future.
Universally agreed by biblical and theological scholars alike is the presupposition that Jesus Christ is central to all ministry. [6] It is from him and in him that all ministry, including that of the priesthood, takes foundation. Osborne describes Jesus as the “source, the model and the dynamism of all Church ministry” [7] while Wilkinson refers to Jesus as the “heart of ministry”. [8]
While it is agreed that Jesus is the starting point of the ministry to priesthood, there is much discussion as to how this can be described. There are those scholars like Ormerod who goes into great lengths in describing the priesthood of Jesus through his suffering and self-sacrifice and then makes the connection with the Church as “the community of the suffering servant” mediating the salvation to the world. [9] While other scholars such as Wilkinson rely heavily on the Scripture passages from Hebrews to describe the priesthood of Jesus. [10] Furthermore there are those scholars including Beguerie, Duchesneau and Due who speak of Jesus as priest in terms of his ministry and pastoral care on earth, while Masure picks up on the theme of Jesus’ ministry as the “supreme Mediator” to God. [11]
From this point there is also another line of disagreement. There are those in Catholic scholarship who believe, that during his earthly life Jesus established the Church “in some detail” while others argue that Church really begins with the “resurrection and the belief in the risen Jesus” many years after the Jesus event. [12] It is at this point it is probably important to be reminded of the fact stressed by Masure: “Never during his mortal life had Jesus of Nazareth accepted or demanded for himself the title of priest”. [13] I believe that all ministry stems from the life and example of Jesus, yet it is through the resurrection event that the Church continued her mission started by Christ in its simplest form.
First came the twelve apostles as “appointed” to “proclaim” and “have authority” by Jesus himself [Mk 3:13-19, Mtt 10:1-4, Lk 6:12-16]. Due, Beguerie and Bausch note numerical significance of this number twelve representing the twelve tribes of the new Israel and representative of the “universality of the Church”. [14] On and above these “witnesses of the gospel-events” were other “wandering apostles” going from place to place proclaiming the message of Christ. [15] These wondering apostles being true to the farewell discourses of Jesus at the Last Supper; “do this in memory of me”. [16] This very name apostle recalls their mission in the world; “sent, emissary or ambassador”. [17]
With the increase in ministry and given the apostles wandered from place to place there was need for an extra form of ministry, a ministry of service. Hence the establishment of a different model of apostle, starting with seven. Though the ministry of these seven was diaconal in character and that the title deacon was even used twice in the New Testament this can not be overemphasised.
It was not too long after this
that there was a decline in the number of apostles alive and
there was need for leadership and for a continuation of ministry
and “tradition”. [18] This
is when the appointment of elders in the Christian community
emerged. I say in the ‘Christian community’, in that
the tradition of elders was nothing unique and derived from the
early Jewish tradition. This word elder in Greek is presbyteros
meaning priest.
[19] The
function of these elders was to preach, teach and preside over
the assembly [1 Tim 5:17] while also ministering to the sick
and needy [1 Tim 5:14]. Progressively a number of these elders
had more responsibility and authority bestowed upon them thus
forming yet another form of ministry, that of what Bausch refers
to as “guardians of the community”. [20] Other
scholars like Beguerie, Wilkinson, Bausch and Osborne are quick
from here to make the connection between these elders with extra
authority and episcopacy, however Bausch adds that the terms
‘presbyter’ and ‘guardian’ are used interchangeably. [21]
Liturgically the appointment and ‘empowering’ of all these New Testament ministers was through the laying on of hands [Acts 6:3-6, 13:2-3, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6-8]. This is where further debate exists. Palmer writing in 1963 takes the more literal interpretation saying that the laying on of hands of Timothy with an accompanying prayer was a “sacramental ordination”. [22] Yet scholars like Osborne strongly “contest any statement on ordination based on New Testament alone” and argue that the laying on of hands can not be interpreted as an ordination ritual. [23] Bausch describes this liturgical action as being “installed” or “simply investing in their roles” while even a few scholars go as far as saying that this laying on of hands was not symbolic of the receiving of the Spirit nor a ritual conferring grace. [24] However like Mitchell, Beguerie and Bausch, I prefer to link this ritual of laying on of hands with the practice as continued through ages right up till now. This laying on of hands being ‘symbolic’ of not a “relay-game of succession”, but rather a ongoing handing down of ministry as from Jesus himself. [25]
Towards the end of the high patristic period and into the second and third centuries the episcopate had become a major leader in the Christian community and the responsibilities and authority of the presbyter decreased considerably. Osborne refers to presbyters moving to the “second rank of leadership” [Sic.] with the primary task not being liturgy but rather advising the episcopate. [26] This is evident in Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8 as cited by Beguerie; “The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.” [27]
Though the bishop was considered the ‘normal’ celebrant of the Eucharist there was still a clear hierarchy of respect established towards the three forms of ministry. Following the above statement on the Eucharist, Ignatius writes: “Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy, too, as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command from God”. [28] This was obviously a huge leap and bound from the original ministries as performed and established by Christ and his first apostles. The ministry of Jesus Christ as the servant and the one who suffered for all had gradually been replaced with this new model which appeared somewhat hierarchical.
On and above this increase in respect and involvement in the affairs of the state and Church leadership came a whole new theology as influenced by the Hebrew Scriptures, that of “sacerdotalization” of ministry. Beguerie refers to the beginning of a new way of talking, of how the Church began to talk of the priest and bishop “using vocabulary reserved for sacred persons (hiereus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin)”. [29] However, Osborne goes on to say that this sacredos is applied to the bishop and “loosely extends” to the priest as the episcopacy was considered theologically the “fullness of priestly ministry”. [30]
Deacons became the assistants of the bishops with a much clearer role description which included liturgical involvement. [31] With the increase in Church responsibility came also the increase in involvement of the state. Wilkinson speaks of the tension in these early days with bishops being over-involved in the affairs of the state and the community struggling to differentiate between the ministry of the priest and the bishop. [32]
In the years that followed major shifts took place with the re-inventing of the priesthood. By the year 1100 the priest became more independent of the bishop and the Eucharist focused on priestly ministry right through to the medieval period. At this time also, the Church adopted the Celtic form of sacrament of reconciliation by a priest, the priest became the “usual minister” of the sacrament of baptism and the sacraments of marriage and anointing that were previously the ministries of the laity prior to 750, became the ministry of only the priest. [33] Furthermore, it was from this point that clergy were required to be celibate leaving behind the ‘normality’ of marriage in ministry which stemmed back even as far as St. Peter himself.
The year 1100 saw another huge theological step. No longer was the bishop seen as the ‘fullness of priesthood’, the more complete form of ministry or the one to whom sacredos only applies. Episcopacy by this stage had become “simply a title of honour and of jurisdiction” and by no means something more liturgically connected to the Eucharist than that of the priest. [34] With this different understanding of priesthood came the new insights, challengers and theological debates of the scholastic period.
In summarizing the theological
developments of the scholastic period in relation to ministry,
Osborne refers to three essential elements. Firstly, the ministry
of priesthood became more focused on the Eucharist. Hence with
this focus of priesthood primarily associated with the Eucharist
came a “liturgical or sacramental understanding of priest”. [35] Palmer notes that
in this period ordination was clearly numbered as one of the
seven sacraments and with the revival of Augustine’s theology
of “sacramental character” the practice of re-ordination
was prohibited.
[36] Furthermore,
he adds, that the simple ordination liturgy consisting of the
laying on of hands that was practiced at the start of this period
was gradually added to. Many of the rituals included in the ordination
rite were associated with the priest’s function as celebrant
of the Eucharist. Some of these rites included the receiving
of the chalice and the paten. [37]
Secondly, the ministry of priesthood was seen in terms of power. This pitestas power, Osborne believes can be seen in terms of imitating Christ in service, that of diakonia. However this notion of power was not essential to the priesthood of this period. More than often there was a shift to what Osborne refers to as “arrogance of power” though the Church of this time never regarded it as such. For the scholastic theologians their emphasis was on the “sacredness of the power” and on the “holiness” of order, just like that of Christ. [38] Furthermore, this power was again connected with the Eucharist and the other sacraments. David Power in his article Church Order cites a number of theologians of this period making the connection between the priest reciting the words of Christ from the supper narrative with consecrating and offering the sacrifice. This he argues is a form of in persona Christi. [39] As priest one had the ‘power’ to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and the power to forgive sins. [40]
Finally, the ministry of priesthood in this period was seen as a ministry in its own right and not culminated only in the bishop. No longer was the episcopacy acknowledged as the “fullness of priesthood” but rather was seen as a “dignity of office”. [41] It was from this period of history that the episcopacy was not included in the sacrament of order as it was for centuries before and the ministerial responsibilities of the priest increased. [42] Yet with this change in theological and sacramental understanding there was no denying that there was a “apostolic succession” of bishops linking ministry from one generation to another and that respect was due for all bishops. In the writings of Thomas he makes a strong Christological link with priesthood and goes further in describing the bishop as “spouse of Christ”. [43]
With this increase in ‘power’ to the priest and the closer link between the priest with the liturgy and sacraments came some ‘abuse of power and position’. Beguerie describes the Middle Ages as a time when the number of priests increased and so did their remoteness from their bishop. This new ‘freedom’ did “not encourage either healthy doctrine or good morals”. [44] The liturgy became much more elaborate with the priest becoming the focus and the assembly being nothing more than passive spectators. The understanding of Christ in the sacrament became more literal hence the introduction of the elevation of the host, the sounding of the gong and the theology of grace granted through gazing upon the host: What some liturgists and theologians refer to as the ‘gaze that saves’. Furthermore, clergy were financially secure with freedom from tax, having management of stock, property and business and the lucrative income from celebrating private masses, indulgences and charging for sacraments. Hence there were those like Luther and Calvin who felt there was need for ‘reform’. With the revolutionary theologies, doctrines and debates of these two in relation to ministry, sacraments, priesthood and Church authority came the Council of Trent.
In describing the next period of history one Catholic theologian describes the church in the time of reformation as with Catholic exaggerations, inflated ministers, and elaborate ritual. At the same time Bausch notes that the reformers “retapped the ancient tradition and were ready to admit that Eucharist and sacrifice were compatible”. [45] Another scholar writing back in 1963 was not as positive describing reformation as a “period of moral decadence which led to the dangerous Reformation period and ended in the great catastrophe of Protestantism”. [46] However, most agree that reformation and the Council of Trent were times of reflecting on where the Church had come from, how it was in the present day and how it was developing and moving towards the future. In relation to priesthood and the sacraments both the reformers and the Catholic Church interpreted the past very differently, saw the present within their own lenses and both had varying views of where the church was going.
As early as 1520 to 1525 Luther protested against clerical priesthood and stressed a universal priesthood while towards the end he also spoke of a separate ministry of preaching and administering the sacraments. Osborne emphasises that for Luther the word ‘priest’ was used for all maintaining that the New Testament makes no allowances for a sacrament of order believing that the sacramentalising of Church ministry was a “creation of Rome”. [47] Palmer too takes this stand saying that Luther understood priesthood as being “exercised by all Christians only in the temple of their own souls”. [48]
As for Calvan his understanding of ministry and priesthood was not so different from Luther, though he strongly adhered to the thinking that God did not need humanity for ministry as God could do ministry without us. In the words of Calvan himself, “He could indeed do it either by himself without any sort of aid or instrument, or even by the angels; but there are many reasons why he prefers to do it by means of men”. [49] The second emphasis of Calvan was that the call to ministry was an inner call and that the idea of election and ordination were non-scriptural and “subverted by papacy”. [50]
With this understanding of ministry, ordination and the priesthood, came much debate in other areas such as liturgy, sacraments, the understanding of the Eucharist, power and grace. Hence the Church spoke out at the Council of Trent. The eight canons devised at this council clearly defend the Catholic faith while at the same time make a deliberate rejection of reformation. Canons one to four stress that contrary to Luther and Calvan’s theology, the priesthood is linked to the New Testament enabling the priest the power to consecrate, forgive, proclaim the gospel and preach and that there are no other orders be it major or minor. Furthermore, orders are instituted by Christ himself and are not a human intervention. Unlike the reformers understanding of the time, priesthood is conferred by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is character imprinted by ordination making priesthood permanent. [51]
Canons five to eight went even further to strengthen this theology of orders speaking of the anointing at ordination as holy and the hierarchy consisting of bishops; priests and ministers as divinely instituted. Both of these issues were being strongly disputed by both Luther and Calvan and later Zwingly. In relation to that running debate concerning the authority of the bishop and the order of bishops, Trent acknowledges that bishops have the added power to confirm and ordain and that this is legitimate not a human intervention but that does not make them a separate order outside of that of the priesthood.
The next huge bound in theological thinking which has been the most influential in our understanding of ministry and priesthood today, was that of Vatican Council II. This council was not so much concerned with defending the faith or enforcing canons nor was it a result of heresies or challenges to the structure and traditions of the Church. Vatican II was the people’s council. It was as some refer to as, the ‘Catholic Reformation’, where the role and theology of what it means to be Christian, to be baptised and to be called into ministry as a ‘whole people of God’ was addressed. Osborne describes Vatican II as “holding the commanding place” by presenting a clear theological understanding of ministry expressed both in documents and renewed in the liturgical rituals of the Church. [52]
It was overwhelmingly clear what the Vatican
II Council documents were saying about ministry and priesthood.
Bishop Michael Putney in giving his impression of Vatican II
describes it as a “renewal” with the “promise
of a better world and a kinder, gentler Church. [53] No longer was
the priest to be seen as the celebrant being central to the Mass.
The priest was now the officiant as the celebration of the Mass
was the role of the entire assembly as the priesthood of all
believers. In the words of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the
sacred liturgy, the Christian people as far as possible should
take part in the liturgy “fully, actively, and as a community”. [54] So important was
this new understanding on the ministry of the non-ordained that
a whole section was devoted to the laity in LumenGentium
on the church.
[55] This
document cites biblical references from Ephesians, Galatians,
1 Corinthians, Colossians and Peter to state that the Church
is one body consisting of members with varying gifts and abilities
and there are to be no distinctions between anyone. Furthermore
LumenGentium stresses that it was through the example
and call of Christ that the laity have a “sacred ministry”,
a “vocation to build up the Church”. [56]
With this new emphasis on the full and active participation of the whole people of God came much drastic liturgical, ritual and architectural changes which continue to effect the Church today. No longer was the Mass to be in Latin but was to be in the language of the people. Altars were moved out from walls and the priest stood facing the people as one with them. Many of the over-clericalised rituals and traditions that caused a ‘them and us mentality’ or that previously may have come under attack by early reformers were abandoned or redeveloped. Some of these included private Masses for both the living and the dead, some devotional practices and the more elaborate what I refer to as an Anglo Catholic, sanctuary ‘priest-craft’. [57] The more literal understanding of Christ present in the host was extended to speak of Christ being truly present in the assembly, the word, the consecration, the communion and the sending out of the people.
In closing, I would like to reflect on where the Church is now, in light of what we may ‘become’ or are ‘becoming’. Today the Church continues to interpret and apply these same Vatican II documents and theologies. Among many Catholic clergy I speak to, there are various opinions as to how far Vatican II has actually been implemented and how far it needs to be extended.
Given the shortage of clergy and
the aging of priests, the Church more and more is being challenged
to re-look at history, Scripture and tradition. If our theology
of priesthood is not linked to the physical male figure of Jesus
Christ, what does this say about women as priests? If the priesthood
is about the ‘whole people of God’, what does this
say about women and men equal in ministry? [58] Yet
at the same time within this framework of all called into ministry,
how can the sacramental priesthood not loose significance. [59] If the ratification
of celibacy of clergy happened as late as the Council of Trent,
and we continue to believe that many great priests and bishops
were married prior to about 1100, what does this say about priests
having to remain single?
In my research of this development of ordination and the theology of priesthood, it is evident that the Church is a growing, moving, non-static ‘organ’. Over many years the Church has been shaped and re-shaped through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, the needs of the community, the situation of the time and the expectations of the future. What is also interesting to note, is that most of the changes were not limited to one particular area. For example, with a different understanding of one small particle of theology came liturgical, architectural, ritual, cultural, canonical changes and developments. Hence the Church we experience today may well be a different Church in the years to come, and actually, ‘must’ be different for it to be relevant, dynamic and truly in touch with the ‘whole people of God’ today.
[1] Meyer, Charles. Man of God: A Study of the Priesthood. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1974, p. 9.
[2] Meyer. Man of God. p.9.
[3] Veuillot, Pierre. The Catholic Priesthood: According to the Teaching of the Church: Papal Documents from Pius X to Pius XII.. Dublin: MH Gill and Son LTD, 1957, p. 6.
[4] Tillard, JMR. “The Apostolic Foundations of Christian Ministry”. Worship 63/4 (July 1989), p. 291.
[5] Tillard. “The Apostolic”. P.291.
[6] In modern terms Cozzens refers to Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who speaks of “Jesus as first and foremost, the one who bears the Mystery of God” and it is the priest who leads the people of God “into an evermore intimate contact” with this mystery. Cozzens, Bernard. The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1986, p.6.
[7] Osborne, Kenan. Priesthood: A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, p.28.
[8] Wilkinson, Peter. Focus on Priesthood: An Exploration of the Sacraments. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: Kevin Mayhew Publishers, 1988, p.4.
[9] “Jesus embodies this role of the suffering servant and so become THE high priest (arche-hieros)” Orrmerod, Neil. “Towards a Systematic Theology of Ministry: A Catholic Perspective”. Pacifica 8 (1995), p.88.
[10] Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. P.4.
[11] Beguerie, Phillippe et al. How to understand The Sacraments. New York: Crossroad, 1991, pp.5-15. Masure, Eauene. The Diocesan Priest: A Study in the Theology and Spirituality of the Priesthood. London: Geoffrey Chapman Press, 1957, p.4. Due, Date. The Priest and Sacred Scripture. Washington: Publications Office United States Catholic Conference, 1972, pp.97, 97.
[12] Osborne. Priesthood. P.39.
[13] Masure, Eauene. The Diocesan Priest: A Study in the Theology and Spirituality of the Priesthood. London: Geoffrey Chapman Press, 1957, p.8.
[14] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.96. Bausch, William. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. Cennecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1982, p96. Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. p.5. Due. The Priest and Sacred Scripture. p.18.
[15] Due. The Priest and Sacred Scripture. pp.18-19.
[16] Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. p.5. Osborne. Priesthood. 128.
[17] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. P.97.
[18] Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. p.6.
[19] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.98.
[20] Bausch. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. p.20.
[21] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.99. Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. p.6. Bausch. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. p.20. Osborne. Priesthood. P.128.
[22] Palmer, Paul. Sacraments of Healing and of Vocation. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963, p.60.
[23] Osborne. Priesthood. P.84.
[24] Bausch. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. p.21.
[25] Mitchell, Nathan. Mission and Ministry: History and Theology in the sacrament of Order. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1982, p.209.
[26] Osborne. Priesthood. P.86.
[27] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.102.
[28] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.99.
[29] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.102.
[30] Osborne. Priesthood. pp.160, 192.
[31] In relation to liturgy Osborne states: “Liturgy began to be the basis for Church leadership rather than Church leadership being the basis for liturgical leadership”. Osborne. Priesthood. p.128.
[32] What Osborne refers to as the “Gradual breakdown of the Church as Communion”. Osborne. Priesthood. p.160. Wilkinson. Focus on Priesthood. p.6.
[33] Osborne. Priesthood. pp. 1920-193.
[34] Osborne. Priesthood. p. 192.
[35] Osborne. Priesthood. p. 208.
[36] Palmer, Paul. Sacraments of Healing and of Vocation. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963, p65.
[37] Palmer. Sacraments of Healing and of Vocation. p.66.
[38] Osborne. Priesthood. p.209.
[39] Power, David. “Church Order: The Need for Redress”. Worship 71/4 (July 1997), p.231.
[40] Osborne. Priesthood. p.210.
[41] Rather than being seen as the “fullness of priesthood” it could be said that it was seen, as an ‘extention of their priesthood’ as understood by many Anglicans today. Osborne. Priesthood. p.209.
[42] Bausch. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. p.218.
[43] Osborne. Priesthood. p.210.
[44] Beguerie. How to Understand the Sacraments. p.103.
[45] Bausch. Ministry: Traditions, Tensions, Transitions. p.55.
[46] Due. The Priest and Sacred Scripture. p.12.
[47] Osborne. Priesthood. p.226.
[48] Palmer. Sacraments of Healing and of Vocation. p.66.
[49] Osborne. Priesthood. p.240.
[50] Osborne. Priesthood. p.243.
[51] Osborne. Priesthood. pp.269-270.
[52] Osborne. Priesthood. p.307.
[53] Putney, Michael. “Priest: Bearer of the Mystery”, Compass 32/2 (Winter 1997), p12.
[54] Flannery, Austin. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar And Post Conciliar Documents. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1996, p.9.
[55] Flannery, Austin. Vatican Council II. p.288.
[56] Flannery, Austin. Vatican Council II. p.390.
[57] It is interesting to note that many of the liturgical and ritual practices of the pre-Vatican II Mass are still practiced internationally by much of the Anglican Church. Even such things as subdeacons, High Mass, baretas and the priest with back to the people are still very common.
[58] [58] Haring refers to the sacrament of ordination as the “sacrament of status” in which women are left to feel inferior. Haring, Hermann. “Not Authorized by Jesus? An Analysis of the Roman Document”. Concilium 3 (1999), p4.
[59] Cozzens refers to the act of “blurring of the roles” given the shortage of priests and seminarians. Cozzens, Bernard. The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1986, p.8.
_______________________
[Fr Peter Carlsson, Chaplain of St Luke's Anglican School, Diocese of Brisbane]
FrPeterCarlsson@aol.com
