PRIESTLY ORDINATION

                          by Fr. William Most

  There are two avenues of approach to the question of ordination, one
  by the texts of the Magisterium, the other by mere human analysis of
  data in Scripture.

  First of all, within texts of the magisterium, there are texts of the
  Councils:

  <Lumen gentium> #10 says of ordained priests that they differ,"in
  essence and not only in degree", from the laity. All of chapter 3 of
  <Lumen gentium> spells out the different three degrees. The council
  of Trent defined (DS 1752) that at the Last Supper Christ Himself
  ordained the Apostles. So the Church has never said anything that
  resembles the picture of a community picking those who seemed to have
  charismatic qualities.

  Secondly, we turn to Scripture, Old and New Testaments, and to
  history;

  In Acts 14. 23 we find that St. Paul on his return through Asia Minor
  on his first mission established presbyters in every place. In 1 Thes
  5. 12-13 he told the people to obey the authorities. Even if we are
  not sure just what office it was, it is very significant. What of the
  arguments that try to nullify the testimony of Acts? They can all be
  answered: cf. Wm. Most, <Free From All Error>, chapter 18.

  We should add that in any field of knowledge it takes a long period
  for highly specific terms to develop. At first we meet the generic
  words <Episkopos> (overseer) and <Presbyteros> (elder) and <Diakonos>
  (servant).  Not strangely, it took time to make these precise. We
  might compare the case of the Latin sacramentum: it was not until the
  12th century that it became precise. Before that it was used for
  anything religious and/or mysterious. So if someone in those
  centuries had asked if deaconesses received the sacrament of orders,
  he might easily find both yes and no answers.

  Next, Clement of Rome, in his <Letter to Corinth>, c. 95 AD. wrote in
  #44: "Now our apostles. . . knew that there was going to be strife
  over the title of bishop. It was for this reason, and because they
  had been given an accurate knowledge of the future, that they
  appointed the officers we have mentioned. Furthermore, they later
  added a provision to the effect that should these die, other approved
  men should succeed to their ministry." Here there is no notion of the
  community just picking someone, who needed no ordination.
  Interestingly in #54 the same Clement refers to the same men as
  presbyters. It is clear that the two titles were not clearly
  differentiated at that date. For that matter, they were unclear also
  in the day of St. Paul, In Acts 20. 17 Paul called for the presbyters
  of Miletus to come to Ephesus.  But in 20. 28 he calls the same men
  bishops. At the start of Philippians, he greets bishops and deacons,
  without a mention of presbyters. Again, the terms <presbyter> and
  <episkopos> were still not sharply differentiated.

  We might ask: Why not use the established Greek word <hiereus>?
  Probably because it was used for pagan and also for Jewish priests.

  All this is in accord with what we find in the Old Testament. At
  Sinai, Moses was ordered (Exodus 19. 12-15) to set boundaries around
  the mountain: if anyone crossed, he was to be stoned. In Leviticus 8,
  God ordered Moses to ordain Aaron and his sons priests, with
  elaborate ceremonies. There was no thought that the community just
  picked men with "gifts" and no ordination was needed. Even after
  that, in Lev 6, when Aaron already was High Priest, and was going
  freely into the Holy of Holies, God warned through Moses (Leviticus
  16) that Aaron could do that only once a year, with special ritual.
  The people did not just tell Aaron what to do. Even after their
  ordination, the sons of Aaron sinned by offering profane fire
  (Numbers 3). God slew them for that. The approval of their gifts by
  the community again meant nothing.  Later, in Numbers 13, Miriam said
  God spoke through her as well as through Moses. She was made a leper
  of the spot. In Numbers 16 we see a similar claim by Korah, Dathan
  and Abiron. The earth opened and swallowed them up.

  Still later King Saul, in 1 Samuel 13, dared to offer sacrifice.
  Through the prophet Samuel, God rejected Saul and his dynasty. Still
  later, 2 Kings 15. 5 says the Lord turned the King Uzziah into a
  leper. Josephus, Antiquities 9. 22, fills in saying Uzziah tried to
  offer sacrifice, even though the priests told him not to. God struck
  him with leprosy.

  So the right to offer sacrifice depends not on some subjectively
  supposed "gifts" but on God's appointment. Hebrews 5. 4-6 says that
  even Jesus did not dare to take that on Himself, but was appointed by
  the Father, for no one can take on that honor unless appointed by
  God.

  When Blessed Mother in her Magnificat says God had looked upon the
  lowly estate of his handmaid, it was not for her merits that she was
  chosen to be the Mother of God.  Then, when a woman in the crowd
  declared blessed the womb that bore Jesus, He replied: "Rather
  blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it." Vatican II,
  in <Lumen gentium> #56 explains that Jesus was contrasting two forms
  of dignity - that of the Mother of God, and that of hearing the word
  of God and keeping it. The second is the greater, as Jesus and
  Vatican II said.  Our Lady was of course at the summit in both
  categories.

  As we said, the Council of Trent defined that at the last supper
  Jesus ordained the apostles. This of course is often denied, in spite
  of a solemn definition.  Behind this sort of thing lie the claims
  that Jesus was ignorant, could not and did not make any plans for a
  church. As one tragic commentator said, we cannot be sure He shared
  "our sophistication." Instead, He expected the end very soon - and
  could not establish sacraments either.

  On the contrary the Church has taught repeatedly that His human soul
  from the first instant of conception saw the vision of God, in which
  all knowledge is present. By repetition on the ordinary magisterium
  level, this is to be rated an infallible teaching, even though it is
  so widely denied today. (Cf. Wm. Most, <The Consciousness of
  Christ>).

  Still further, so that He could be ignorant, such commentators must
  suppose His Mother did not know who He was. But as soon as Gabriel
  said Her Son would reign over the house of Jacob forever, not just
  she, but any ordinary Jew, would know that meant the Messiah. And so
  there would begin to crowd into her mind all the messianic
  prophecies. Very strangely, the ancient Jews, as shown in the
  Targums, understood these remarkably well, better than our <New
  Jerome Biblical Commentary>.  A fine modern Jewish scholar, Jacob
  Neusner, (<Messiah in Context>, p. 243) cites Gen 49. l0 and says:
  "It is difficult to imagine how Gen 49. 10 could have been read as
  other than a messianic prediction." Contrast the remarks of NJBC.

  It may be objected: we cannot take at face value the annunciation
  account. But <Lumen gentium> #56 did take it as real, and we compare
  LG 55 which is so strict that it adds cf. before Gen 3. 15 and Is 7.
  14, to indicate we cannot be sure that the human author of those
  passages saw as much as the Church now sees in them. But there is no
  such limiting expression in LG 56 on the annunciation. Rather, all is
  spelled out in detail.

  Since she knew at least that much, of course she would have told Him,
  and then He would not have been so ignorant!

  What of the lines of the Epistle to the Hebrews about just one
  priest?  Protestants of course love those things, not having the
  guidance of an infallible Church. But we do. We have already seen
  what our Church teaches on priesthood. And any scholar knows that
  Hebrews, far from being a theological treatise, is of homiletic
  genre. It tells of the once-for-all earning of a title to all
  forgiveness and grace by the death of Jesus. But it is another thing
  to describe the process of giving it out. St. Paul does say much on
  that, in his syn Christo theme, e. g. , Romans 8. 17; 8. 9; 6. 1-6
  plus Col 3. 1-4 and Eph 2. 5-6.

  Opposition to the teaching of the Church on priesthood continues,
  especially from those who want the ordination of women. Sadly, it
  still continues even after the definition by John Paul II, who made
  clear in more than one way that his statement was definitive, that
  is, final. There is no hope of anything further to come to contradict
  it.

  I seem to see two reasons for the rejection of the papal definition.

  First, they appeal to Vatican II or to its spirit.  But there are no
  texts at all of Vatican II to support that idea. As we said above,
  <Lumen gentium> #10 says the priesthood of the laity and that of
  ordination differs not only in degree but also in kind. It is for the
  laity to offer "spiritual sacrifices, as explained in LG 34, not to
  approach the altar. So no matter who says the opposite, or whatever
  the reasons, they do not count at all.

  Secondly there is the desire of feminists for ordination.  They claim
  to have "gifts". But again, that counts for nil without the approval
  of the Church. Really, I am astounded that any scholarly journal
  would print anything at all by a feminist. One of the first
  requisites for scholarly work is to try one's best to be free of
  prejudice and bias. The feminists openly try to he biased. They do
  not deserve a scholarly hearing at all. A tragic case is that of
  Rosemary Reuther a prime feminist, quoted in <National Catholic
  Reporter> on May 29, 1968, p. 4 as saying: ". . . Catholic bishops
  have no monopoly on Christ, and the body of Christ may appear just as
  validly, if not more so in the Eucharist celebrated by a Negro woman
  around a kitchen table as in the one celebrated by the Pope in St.
  Peter's." The same writer contributed a paper to a symposium,
  <Consensus in Theology>? edited by L. Swidler (Westminster, 1980). On
  p. 65 she said: "A new consensus could only come about if this
  traditional power [the Magisterium] could be deposed, and the church
  restructured on conciliar, democratic lines accountable to the
  people. . . . This is what Kung is really calling for: that the
  academy replace the hierarchy as the teaching magisterium of the
  church. . . . It entails the equivalent of the French Revolution in
  the Church. . . ."

  How could anyone call that sober unbiased scholarship. Or any
  scholarship at all?

  Surely such things cannot outweigh the judgment of the Church, given
  in General Council, or of the Pope in defining.

  I wonder too how the feminists can fail to see that the persons who
  have the least clout of all in the Church are priests. A priest can
  be washed out in a moment by any bishop at all, and sent to the
  boondocks, or can be fired.  In contrast, the nuns get a hearing and
  are not mashed no matter what they say, even before the Pope in
  person when he appeared in the U. S the first time.


     -------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
  Provided courtesy of:

       The Catholic Resource Network
       Trinity Communications
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336

  The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
  service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
  bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------