Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple? The point is that one prays to God and not to any other entity, not to them or through them. Jesus was clear. 
Posted on 06/16/2007 8:06:31 PM PDT by markomalley
THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD
by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Dr. McInerny asked me to write an essay on the priesthood for this special issue of Dossier. After reflecting on the matter for a few days, it occurred to me that I have written many columns in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review on this topic. Going back over the index I found more than a dozen short editorials that are very much to the point. I have selected five of them and decided to present them to you in this issue. These short reflections offer a good summary of my views on the priesthood and cover a period of about fifteen years.
Why Are Catholic Priests Called “Priests”?
For many years I have been intrigued by the different titles given to their clergy by the various religious bodies. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and perhaps a few others, give the title of “priest” to their clergy. Most Protestants refer to their clergy as “Minister” or “Reverend” or “Pastor” or simply “Mr.” The basic reason for the difference in titles is the difference in theology.
By definition a priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice; it is, in a mystical sense, a re-presentation of the identical sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the altar of the Cross on Calvary almost 2000 years ago. So because the Catholic priest, in celebrating the Eucharist (= Mass, Liturgy) acts in the person of Christ, and in a mysterious way offers once again the unique sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, he is called a “priest.” The Latin word for this is sacerdos (sacra + dans), i.e., one who gives or brings holy things to the People of God.
Jesus Christ is our eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedek. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the proper task of the priest consists in being a mediator between God and men (S. Th. III, 22, 1). And St. Paul instructs us in 1 Tim. 2:5 that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and men. Because Jesus is both God and man by reason of the Hypostatic Union, he is able to reconcile God and man in his own Person. That is what he did by his death on the Cross.
The Catholic faith teaches that the priest is another Christ, an alter Christus; he takes on this sublime dignity by receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The most essential function of the sacerdotal or priestly office is sacrifice. For we read in Hebrews 8:3, “Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.”
It is for this reason, therefore, that the Catholic Church (and others also) calls its clergy “priests.” Most Protestants avoid the title because they do not believe that what they call “the Lord’s Supper” is a sacrifice.
In the broadest sense, a sacrifice is the surrender of one good for something else that is better. Thus athletes make many personal sacrifices in order to excel. In the liturgical sense, a sacrifice is an external religious act in which some sensible gift is offered to God by an ordained servant of God in recognition of his absolute majesty and in atonement for sins. Theologians identify four elements here: 1) a visible sacrificial gift, 2) a sacrificing priest, 3) the purpose of the sacrifice (e.g., glorifying God), and 4) an act of sacrifice which removes the gift from man’s dominion to God’s, and represents the interior sacrificial disposition.
The four elements are verified in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. In that unique case, however, the victim and the priest are the same. At Mass in a mystical way the priest re-presents that same sacrifice to the Father, for he says “This is my body....”
I offer this very brief summary of the Church’s teaching on sacrifice, Calvary and the Mass because so many, many Catholics, poorly instructed, simply do not understand what is going on when they attend the Sunday Liturgy. That may also explain why they do not understand the difference between “priest” and “minister.” The Catholic priest is also a minister, but he is first and foremost a priest because he has been empowered by Christ to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the salvation of all.
The Faith of the Priest
There are some strange things being done in the administration of the Sacraments, and especially in offering Mass. A subscriber who put her eight children through her parish school eventually came to the conclusion that she could no longer attend Mass in her own parish because she doubted the validity of the Masses being offered there.
A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words “This is my body” or “This is the cup of my blood” into something else; 3) because the priest positively excludes the intention to do what the Church does in offering Mass.
Donatism was a heresy in the 4th and 5th centuries, especially in North Africa, which caused great harm to the Church. The Donatists believed that the validity of the Sacraments depends on the sanctity or worthiness of the minister; if he was in the state of mortal sin for any reason, then all Sacraments administered by him, including Baptism, were said to be invalid. This opinion was condemned by various Popes and Synods, and it was vigorously opposed by St. Augustine. The Donatists were in error because the principal agent in the Sacraments is Christ himself who operates through the priest as the instrumental cause; by reason of his ordination the priest has the “priestly character” indelibly imprinted on his soul, like the character imprinted by Baptism. By the will of God Christ works through the validly ordained priest, even if he is a sinner. If that were not so, then the faithful would never know for sure whether or not they had really received a Sacrament.
Most Catholics seem to know that mortal sin on the soul of the priest does not render the Sacraments he administers invalid. But it may come as a surprise to many Catholics that the validity of the Sacraments, let us say the Mass, also does not depend essentially on the faith of the priest who offers the Mass. Thus, Masses offered by heretical priests, by schismatics, by Catholic priests who are plagued by doubts or who have false ideas about the Real Presence or transubstantiation, can be and probably usually are valid Masses. They must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes, and have the intention of doing what the Church does in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Latin: intentio faciendi quod facit ecclesia). The priest does not have to agree with what the Church does, or understand it perfectly, or have it explicitly in mind while he is offering Mass. If in some general or vague way he intends to do what the Church does in the Mass (and in the other Sacraments also), then the Mass is certainly valid.
The Church’s teaching on the validity of the Sacraments is very important today, since there is so much confusion among Catholics about Catholic doctrine, coming mainly from faulty catechetics, distortions in the media, and the errors of dissenting theologians. Our people should know that, just because a priest preaches heresy from the pulpit or ad libs at Mass (provided that he uses the correct form of consecration and valid matter), it does not necessarily mean that the Mass is invalid. It would be invalid if he did not have the intention of doing what the Church does, that is, if he positively excluded that. Such a supposition should not be made if he basically follows the rites of the Church. If, however, he should ridicule the Mass and use invalid matter, or make up his own formula of consecration, that would be a clear sign that the Mass is invalid.
Priests are weak human instruments of Christ. Let us thank him and marvel at his wisdom that he did not make his Sacraments wholly dependent on the holiness and faith of his ministers.
Priests, Prayer and Preaching
One of the main tasks of the priest is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is ordained not only to administer the Sacraments, but also to proclaim the Good News of Salvation.
Training for the priesthood normally includes four years of college, often with a major in philosophy, although there has been a decline recently and regrettably in the study of philosophy. This is followed by four years’ study of theology, which includes dogma, moral theology, canon law, liturgy, history of the Church, Homiletics, Fathers of the Church, and so forth. When a candidate has successfully completed this course he is recommended to the bishop for ordination and finally ordained a priest of Jesus Christ “according to the line of Melchisedek.”
Everything that the priest is— his personal experiences, his studies, the books he has read— literally everything goes into his preaching. The more he knows and the better prepared he is, the better a preacher he will make. And his preaching is extremely important, especially now that there is so much emphasis on the liturgy of the Word. The point I want to make here is that the key to effective preaching is the personal prayer of the priest. Of course, he must be well trained in theology, he must study Holy Scripture, he must know the rudiments of public speaking, and he must diligently prepare each homily as if it were the only one he would ever give. These are the necessary presuppositions in the preacher of the Gospel. But one essential element is still lacking. That is prayer.
We must not forget that the priest enters the pulpit not to give expression to his own opinions on this or that, but to speak the Word of God. God uses him as an instrument to bring his saving Word to sinners and saints alike.
Preaching well is difficult. It takes a lot of work—and a lot of prayer. The preacher may not dispense with study and preparation, but if he leaves it there and does not go to the Lord in prayer for help and inspiration his words will not make much of an impression on his listeners. By personal prayer and intimate conversation with the Lord the priest comes to a relish and understanding of the Faith that cannot be acquired from books and summer institutes.
The Church, in her wisdom, is very concerned that her priests be men of prayer. During their seminary days priests are taught to spend a period each day in mental prayer; they make annual retreats; they are urged to pray the rosary daily and they are introduced to the Liturgy of the Hours. According to the new Code of Canon Law, priests have a duty to strive for holiness.
“Clerics have a special obligation to seek holiness in their lives, because they are consecrated to God by a new title through the reception of orders, and are stewards of the mysteries of God in the service of His people” (c. 276, #1).
This spiritual program is directly related to the priest’s preaching. It is difficult to preach the Good News convincingly. To preach in a way that touches the hearers’ hearts, the priest must be thoroughly convinced himself of the truth and urgency of what he is saying. In other words, he must have something important to say and he must say it with conviction and enthusiasm. Where will he get that? Primarily from prayer.
The praying priest will be a good preacher. He might not be a Winston Churchill or a Ronald Reagan or a Fr. George Rutler, but he will touch the hearts of the faithful. St. John Vianney, the famous Cure of Ars, was no Demosthenes or Bourdalou but, in his humble sincerity, he was still a powerful preacher. His sanctity gave a power to his words that cannot be substituted for by study and rhetorical skill.
Agent of Christ
One day as I was walking up the side aisle of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York a woman stopped me and said, “Thank you for being a priest.” Then she walked on without another word. That brief encounter made a deep impression on me. It brought home to me vividly how important the priesthood is to the Church and the world. In fact, without the priesthood there would be no Church.
Ordinary Catholic laymen become priests through the laying on of the hands of the bishop and receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. One becomes a priest through the power of Jesus Christ operating through the normal channels of his Church. Orders produce an ontological or real change in the one ordained. Once consecrated he is no longer a lay person and he is no longer exactly like non-priests. He has received a charism that consecrates him to continuing Christ’s prophetic and sacramental ministry.
Jesus is a priest by nature; he was born a priest and he died a priest. For, from the first moment of his conception he offered himself to the Father as a propitiation for our sins and he is our only Mediator with the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). When he instituted orders at the Last Supper he provided that the work of his Incarnation should be continued in history by his apostles and their successors—the bishops and priests installed by them to carry on his mission. So the priest is configured to Christ in a unique way to proclaim the word and to administer the Sacraments, not for his own profit and glory, but for the good of the whole flock of Christ.
The priest of Jesus Christ makes Him, in a certain way, visible and tangible in this passing world. Through the sacramental words of consecration and forgiveness, which only he can utter efficaciously, the grace of Jesus is planted in time and space in a tangible way. St. Paul says he is an ambassador for Christ; in his preaching he is his messenger; in providing for the people Gospel and Sacrament he is also an agent of Christ.
Even if a priest is unworthy of his calling, his sacramental acts are valid and communicate grace; this occurs, not because of him, but in spite of him and in virtue of the grace of Christ in the Church.
The holy priest is one who has identified himself with Christ according to the measure of the grace granted to him. The Church expects her priests to be holy. To be effective, to be convincing, to be agents of conversion, the priest must integrate his priesthood with his personal life. This is not just a counsel; it is a duty that flows from the nature of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. So even if the priest is not a vowed religious, he must still follow the evangelical counsels in the way proper to diocesan priests. We see a striking example of this in the life of the Cure of Ars who is now the patron of priests.
Priesthood is not just a 9 to 5 job; it is not just a function that some men perform for the good of the Church. It is a total way of life. Since he is commissioned to continue the salvific work of Jesus in word and sacrament, the sacrifice of his sexual love in celibacy is not just a practical arrangement. His renunciation of wife and children is basically a clear sign to the world that God has planted in him something that transcends all earthly values, namely, his own divine life as the life of the new and eternal kingdom. The woman who greeted me in St. Patrick’s Cathedral was probably not thinking along these lines, but it was implied in the reverent gratitude she showed for the precious gift I carry with me wherever I go—the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
The Amazing Gift of the Priesthood
As year is added to year, it is my guess that most priests become more deeply aware of the unfathomable treasure they posses in the amazing grace of the priesthood. Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with—both in his official ministry and in his personal life.
We priests all know this, through our study of theology, in a theoretical or abstract way. By prayer, service, sacrifice and perseverance in spite of all obstacles we gradually come to savor it more profoundly in our inner consciousness as we grow older. No doubt, the whole process is guided by the outpouring of divine grace—especially the grace that comes to us through our intimate association with God’s Word and his Seven Sacraments.
Because of his close association with Jesus Christ, with his Word and his Sacraments, there should be no such thing as an “identity crisis” for the Catholic priest. Recently while reading an article on this subject by Fr. Cormac P. Burke, an Irish priest now working in Rome, I came across the following: “A priest then should not only be convinced of his priestly usefulness, he should be convinced it is unique—because our Lord has made it unique. He should not only be aware of his identity, he should be proud of it, and indeed amazed at it. For his real identity is nothing less in fact than amazing” (emphasis added).
The celibate Catholic priest is a visible witness to the transcendence of God, to the fact that Catholics really believe in personal survival after death and eternal reward or punishment. He is a witness to transcendence both in what he is and what he does. Writing about the priest, some years ago Cardinal Joseph Hoeffner of Cologne, Germany, said that our people “want a servant of Christ who is a witness and dispenser of a life other than that of this earth.” “The priest in the modern world,” he added, “is an extraordinary challenge because he does not announce himself but our Lord Jesus Christ, judge and savior of humanity.”
The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ. Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: “What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself.” The priest is “set apart,” not to be distant, but to be totally dedicated to the Lord’s work (Vat. II, Decrees on Priests, #3). Msgr. Escriva also wisely said that the priest is not more a Christian than the layperson, but he is more a priest.
In the same vein, Pope John Paul II summarized the meaning of the priesthood in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests: “In practical terms, the only priest who will always prove necessary to people is the priest who is conscious of the full meaning of his priesthood: the priest who believes profoundly, who professes his faith with courage, who prays fervently, who teaches with deep conviction, who serves, who puts into practice in his own life the program of the beatitudes, who knows how to love disinterestedly, who is close to everyone, and especially to those who are most in need” (#7).
Priests who strive to live their priesthood in that way will never have an identity crisis, but they will be continually amazed at their gift of the priesthood.
Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple? The point is that one prays to God and not to any other entity, not to them or through them. Jesus was clear.
I pray to God the Father, as Jesus directly instructed us to. I pray in His name though.
The point was, following your "original" vs. "second and third hand" logic, you would logically hold the quotes attributed to Jesus by Matthew and John are more accurate and authoritative than those recorded by Mark and Luke because chances are, Mark and Luke weren't there to hear Him with their own ears. And besides, who's to say any of their four human memories are good enough to quote Him accurately?
Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple?
I hold to the original teaching of the Gospel from THE source, the complete and perfect revelation of God in His Word, the Holy Bible. Whether a word came from Christ's mouth or Paul's pen makes absolutely NO difference. ALL of the written Word came by the Holy Spirit.
If someone doesn't believe that, what possible basis does such a person have for believing the words attributed to Christ were actually His? That person might as well view the Bible as a book of good stories and general guidelines for good living. "Truth" it isn't, because it was ALL written by imperfect men. And that's not just wrong, it's truly sad to think any professing believer could think that way.
Jesus also taught His disciples to pray in the same manner as He taught the people.
Think about it. If God is, and knows each sparrow that falls, He will already know what the needs and desires of your heart are. The Lord's Prayer glorifies, exalts and praises God, with your faith that He knows these things.
I think the words of Jesus are more authoritative than those of Paul.
The communications of Gospel is really few, very simple and straightforward. The New Testament renders those few simple concepts through the mouths of many, the rest being heroic stories giving the concepts background and impetus to be taught, and the results of faith and belief in them and their Author.
Given that you don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, I couldn't care less about anything else you might say on the subject.
Then why even respond?
I think the Bible is the word of God; I don't think superfluous details are holy one way or another.
Curiosity.
I think the Bible is the word of God
Apparently only those parts you deem worthy on any given day.
That's just it. You presume to declare not only the existence of what you call superfluous details in Scripture, but also the ability to discern which details qualify as such. In fact, anyone who regularly and repeatedly reads the Bible will tell you it often happens some parts which previously seemed "superfluous" became quite meaningful in their subsequent readings.
ALL of Scripture was written by fallible men through the direct and perfect inspiration of one Holy Spirit. His active role ensures the perfection of the written word of God. Your previously stated belief that the words attributed to Jesus are more authoritative than the rest is not only ridiculously arbitrary, it's flatly unbiblical. One must conclude you deny the role of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture.
The bottom line is you deny the inerrancy of the Bible. That's an awfully slippery slope.
God must be so very happy to see the vaunted William Terrell has pronounced final judgment on the absolute triviality of certain parts of His Holy (or, in Mr. Terrell’s judgment, not so holy) Word.
/sarc
What you're talking about is literal legalism. Jesus had negative opinions of that approach by the Sanhedrin. I think it wise to not repeat those mistakes.
The Gospel is about beliefs and things to do in your personal life to seek and find the kingdom of God, how you must think, how you must act and how you must feel in your heart.
That is the God inspired nature of the New Testament. Who, for instance, was named as a replacement for Judas has only historical meaning and does not advance the Gospel. If you think it does, I'd be interested in why your think it does.
God gave us all a brain. I would assume He thinks we ought to use it.
I fail to see how my staunch belief in the inerrancy and the living nature of the word of God could be termed, "legalistic."
Who, for instance, was named as a replacement for Judas has only historical meaning and does not advance the Gospel. If you think it does, I'd be interested in why your think it does.
First of all, it sounds as if you believe "advancing the Gospel" is the believer's sole purpose in life. It's not. Regardless, the mere suggestion that one could have any sort of a litmus test to determine that a passage of Scripture is "superfluous" is absolutely disgusting.
Secondly, your personal pronouncement that anything found in God's word "does not advance the Gospel"—much worse, that it has "only historical meaning"—is terribly presumptuous. In doing so, you deny the divine authorship of the Bible, making it out to be nothing more than another simple, shallow, dead book written by just another bunch of simple human authors. If God the Holy Spirit wishes to use the account of choosing Matthias to advance His gospel, He can and will do it.
God gave us all a brain. I would assume He thinks we ought to use it.
Yes, but not to the extent of denying God His rightful place. The Bible contains a number of examples of people using their brains to do just that.
But, again, given how you previously denied the inerrancy of the Bible, there's really no point in my discussing its finer points with you. It seems we might as well be talking about the usefulness of the Koran.
I cal it legalistic when there is the demand to follow details unnecessary to spread the Gospel and it principles to humankind.
Regardless, the mere suggestion that one could have any sort of a litmus test to determine that a passage of Scripture is "superfluous" is absolutely disgusting.
Then what value is the passages that tell of who would succeed Judas have to teaching mankind the principles of thought, belief and behavior necessary to seek and find the kingdom of God and its salvation?
If God the Holy Spirit wishes to use the account of choosing Matthias to advance His gospel, He can and will do it.
OK, then how does it? Don't put all this on God. There is and has always been human agency.
Yes, but not to the extent of denying God His rightful place.
Who is denying God His rightful place? His kingdom is within as Jesus said. The Gospels contains, not consists of the way to seek and find that kingdom. The New Testament contains stories of man's efforts to spread the Gospel, and the principles of the Gospel, and the results in the lives of those people as they seek the kingdom and teach others.
The teachings related to the seeking and finding of God and his law are divinely inspired, not every "if", "and" and "the" used to tell the story of that of that seeking.
in persona Christus
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.