Spy Wednesday and a Reflection on the Sins of the Clergy

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 03-31-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Spy Wednesday and a Reflection on the Sins of the Clergy

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

Wednesday of Holy Week is traditionally called “Spy Wednesday,” since it was on this day that Judas conspired with the Temple leadership to hand Jesus over. He would not accomplish his task until the evening of the next day, but this day he made the arrangements and was paid.

One way to reflect on this terrible sin is to consider that Judas was among the first priests called by Jesus. We see in the call of the Apostles the establishment of the ministerial priesthood. Jesus called these men to lead His Church and minister in His name. But one of these priests went wrong, terribly wrong, and turned against the very one he should have proclaimed.

We also see great weaknesses among the other “first priests.” Peter denied Jesus, though he later repented. All the others except John deserted Jesus at the time of His Passion. Yes, I am sad to say, only one priest, one bishop made it to the foot of the Cross. All the rest fled in fear. And so here we see the “sins of the clergy” made manifest. Christ did not call perfect men. He promised to protect His Church from officially teaching error but this does not mean that there is no sin in the Church, nor that those who are called to lead are without sin. The story of Judas shows that even among those who were called, one went terribly wrong.

In recent years there has been much focus on the sins of Catholic priests who went terribly wrong and sexually abused the young. The vast majority of priests have never done such things, but those who did so inflicted great harm.

There are other sins of the clergy that have nothing to do with sexuality but that also may have caused great harm. Maybe it was an insensitive remark. Perhaps it was a failure to respond at a critical moment such as a hospital visit. And how many of you have lamented deeply the scandal of silent pulpits, the silence of so many clergy in the face of a moral meltdown? Whatever it might be that has harmed or alienated you, please don’t give up on God or on the Church. If a priest or a Church leader has caused you grief please know that there are other priests, deacons, and lay leaders who stand ready to hear your concerns and offer healing. Let the healing begin. Ask among your Catholic family and friends for recommendations about helpful and sensitive priests or Church leaders who can listen to your concerns, address them where possible, and offer another opportunity for the Church to reach out to you with love.

On this “Spy Wednesday” pray especially for priests. We carry the treasure of our priesthood in earthen vessels; as human beings we struggle with our own issues. We have many good days, but some less-than-stellar moments, too. The vast majority of priests, though sinners, are good men who strive to do their very best. But some among us have sinned greatly and, like Judas, caused harm to the Body of Christ. Some of us may have caused harm to you. Please accept this invitation to begin anew.

If you have stayed away because of some hurt caused by any leader of the Church, strive on this “Spy Wednesday” to still seek Christ where He is found. He is among sinners and saints, in the Church He founded. The Church is perfect in her beauty as the Bride of Christ, but consists of members who are still “on the way” to holiness.

After all my verbiage, here is a music video that presents this message better than I ever could. If you have ever known someone who has been hurt, or been hurt yourself, allow this powerful video to move you.

[daniel1212]

Wow, I can’t remember when one of Monsignor Pope’s blogs was attacked like this. Must be the season for uptight anti-catholics to bash the church.

Then someone is being deficient, or it was posted as a caucus thread, which i am surprised this one was not. When RC incessantly post erroneous material from their own elitist church on a public forum then it invites a response, and they also respond to evangelical postings.

If you do not want the heat, do not bring things into a kitchen.

[daniel1212]

There are 3 levels of priests: bishop,priest, and deacon.

Prove it by Scripture.

[daniel1212]

First, please cite the scripture sources. Thank-you.

That is for you to do since there is not once instance where a NT pastor (besides Christ) is even ever titled "priest" ("hierus") , or even an example of them engaging in any uniquely sacerdotal function regarding bread.

[Biggirl]

Nope, rather have a scripture source cited.

[Biggirl]

“If you do not want the heat, do not bring things into a kitchen.”

This must be also said to those who want to bash Catholics.

[daniel1212]

I'm not ready to write ANYONE off who clings to Our Lord... no matter how wrongheaded they may be. I believe their hearts are in the right place, it's their heads that are planted firmly up their backsides. But that can be said of me on most days.

That is very gracious, and sound if indeed one is moved by love for Christ and His truth, versus an organization, which most RCs manifest is the case, thus their preoccupation with it.

[Biggirl]

Got to remember that the reason why it was written, the NT in Greek was because it was the common everyday language of the early believers.

The Holy Spirit works through people.

[Biggirl]

I do not let those who are my brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus, though at times not always in the right, to bother me.

[daniel1212]

Nope, rather have a scripture source cited.

Ok, you asked for it. Find one place where a NT pastor is called "priest," apart from the general priesthood of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9) :

*Total KJV Occurrences
episkopos Total KJV Occurrences: 5 bishop, 3 1Tim. 3:2, 1Titus 1:7, 1Pet. 2:25 bishops, 1 Phi. 1:1 overseers, 1 Acts 20:28	presbuteros Total KJV Occurrences: 67 elders, 58 Mat. 15:2, 16:21, 21:23, 26:3, 26:47, 26:57, 26:59, 27:1, 27:3, 27:12, 27:20, 27:41, 28:12, Mark 7:3, 7:5, 8:31, 11:27, 14:43, 14:53, 15:1, Luke 7:3, 9:22,20:1, 22:52, Acts 4:5, 4:8, 4:23, 6:12, 11:30,14:23, 15:2, 15:4,15:6, 15:22-23, 16:4, 21:17-18, 23:14, 24:1, 25:15, 1Tim. 5:17, Tit. 1:5, Heb. 11:2, James 5:14, 1Pet. 5:1, Rev. 4:4, 4:10, 5:5-6, 5:8, 5:11, 5:14,7:11, 7:13, 11:16, 19:3-4 elder, 7 Luk. 15:25, 1Tim. 5:1-2, 5:19, 1Pet. 5:5, 2John 1:1, 3John 1:1 eldest, 1 John 8:9 old, 1 Acts 2:17	hiereus Total KJV Occurrences: 33 priest, 17 Mat. 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luk. 1:5, 5:14, 10:31, Acts 14:13, Heb. 5:6, 7:1, 7:3, 7:11, 7:15, 7:17, 7:20-21, 8:4, 10:11, 10:21 priests, 15 Mat. 12:4-5 (2), Mark 2:26, Luk. 6:4, Luk. 17:14, Jn. 1:19, Acts 4:1, 6:7, Heb. 7:21, 7:23, 8:4, Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6 high, 1 Acts 5:24

Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

Does presbyter or elder mean priest?

In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people. It is also understood that even the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”

The Catholic titular use of hiereus/priest for presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" from old English "preost" etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

Thus despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” in English by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life.

However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground as an ofering unto the Lord, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17)

And in contrast to Catholicism in which the Lord's Supper is the "source and summit" of the Chirstian faith, in which "our redemption is accomplished," nowhere is literally eating anything physical the means of this, nor is any NT pastor shown even dispensing bread as part of their ordained function.

Nor is the church shown making this Catholic eucharist an atonement for sin and the practice around which all else revolves as in Catholicism, and instead the only teaching in Acts and onward (which interprets the gospels) that manifestly describes the supper to any real extent is that of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, and in which the church is the body of Christ, which is to "show (declare, proclaim) the Lord's death" for the church by treating each other as members of that body which in unity with Him, in communally taking part in the "feast of charity," (cf. Jude. 1:12) unselfishly sharing bread and the blood of grapes (preferably) with each other, which Christ supremely showed in purchasing the church with His sinless shed blood. (cf. Acts 20:28)

Thus the nature of the elements was not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, and the sin of some was not effectualy recognizing others as part of that body for whom Christ died. (See here).

And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)

And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)

Thus distinctively identifying Christian clergy with the same distinctive title used for the Jewish sacerdotal clergy (priests) rather than the term the Holy Spirit calls these pastors (presbyters/elders) is unscriptural and functionally unwarranted.

[Mercat]

I like C.S.Lewis’s image of the hallway with lots of rooms. The o
Route to heaven can be through many of those rooms. Some folks to drag everyone out of their rooms, punish them severely, and drag them into their room and slam the door.

[terycarl]

We also see great weaknesses among the other “first priests.” There were no "priests" in the NT church...

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose....they were priests

[daniel1212]

This must be also said to those who want to bash Catholics.

If they complain about responses to Prot articles as RCs do, yes.

[MamaB]

Actually, it is kinda easy to do since they do not back it up with the Bible. Tradition does not count. Men make mistakes but Jesus does not. Like that song, “Jesus Never Fails.”

[metmom]

Jesus never called those He named apostles as *priests*.

There is no need for the priesthood as Jesus made the final, *It is finished*, once for all sacrifice for sin.

It’s a done deal and there remains no more sacrifice for sin.

Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of God waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool.

[daniel1212]

“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine [but see his quote at link below on disagreements with some Roman Catholic doctrines], but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”- C. S. Lewis, “Christian Reunion”, in Christian Reunion and Other Essays, edited by Walter Hooper, London: Collins, 1990, p. 17-18. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co m/2011/09/two-excellent-quotes-by-c-s-lewis-on.html)

For contrary to how the church began, which was upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Thus Rome, like a cult, calls for implicit submission to all her teachings.

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." "We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock,... the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:

The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius

[daniel1212]

a rose, by any other name, is still a rose....they were priests

Wrong analogy, as a tomato plant is not a rose, and presbuteros are not priests any more than all believers are. For “hiereus” in Scripture denotes a special class of clergy who engaged in a unique sacrificial function, with a primary distinctive function being that of offering sacrifices.

And which clerical title is only given to Hebrew and pagan clergy, and never to NT presbuteros/episkopos (being one office: Titus 1:5) not do they engage in any distinctive sacrificial function.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

[Salvation]

Tradition does count. It’s the words of Jesus passed on from person to person. How did Paul find out about Jesus appearing to 500 people at once? It’s not in any Gospel......it’s tradition. It was passed by word of mouth to Paul.

[LT Brass Bancroft]

You do not have Christ at any time because you reject his priests.

[Grateful2God]

St. Jerome translated the manuscripts for us 300 years or so A.D.. Engaging in semantics is not the point here. It is that today is a good day for us to emphasize, and make a practice of, praying for our clergy at all levels. Whatever the Greek, we Catholics call them “priests.”

[GreyFriar]

I dug this reflection regarding Judas and his role in the crucifixion out of an old journal of mine.

1. No new thoughts about Judas except reading Bible at church tonight, my lines in the play [it was a Maundy Thursday service where 13 of us re-enacted the Last Supper]were Judas’ from the last supper as in scripture, no more or less. (Note: I had carried the idea from a similar church ‘play’ in high school that I was somehow betraying Jesus as Judas did.)

2. Insight from Minister’s Palm Sunday Sermon I got at First Century meeting on May 29th: I was told that Jesus did go to the dark side and rescue Judas and took him to the light. Judas had a role to play which he could not avoid. To Jesus, Judas was the 1st of the lost sheep that he went for after the 99 were safeguarded. Judas is now at rest in my mind. This issue is resolved.