Without the Church, the world dies
15 April 2008 - 11 ניסן 5768 by Huw
More from Catholic News: Without the Church, the world dies, says Madrid cardinal. I remember one of the Fathers said, “As the soul is to the Body so the Church is to the World…
“the Church can continue fulfilling her mission as the Sacrament of Salvation.”
But remember: the entire body will be saved and restored in the end.
It has nothing to do with Priests, though. I love the line that “If there is a lack of priests in the Church, the Church dies, and if the Church is not present in the world, the world dies.”
Like what did we do for the first 60-100 years? Jesus didn’t start the priesthood: man did. It seemed like a good idea at the time. But we’re getting over it, thankfully!
“Jesus didn’t start the priesthood: man did. It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Really? Are you sure about that? According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus was himself a priest (and remains so), “after the order of Melchizedek” (actually, from an historical standpoint, Jesus didn’t originate the priesthood if he’s of the order of this mysterious ancient gentile king-priest). He commanded the Apostles to baptize and celebrate the Eucharist. And apart from the New Testament, the earliest Christian writings we have testify to the existence of a eucharistic priesthood in the Christian community.
Ben, the textual evidence offers pictures of some communities with Presbyters, some with Deacons, some only Episkope… But no where does it say that Jesus suggested an order separate from anyone else. That has to be read into the text.
Another way to read into the text results in what we’d call Lay Presidency.
I’m ok with either reading just now - but not ok with pinning it on Jesus.
Well, yes, there is always the problem of eisegesis. The early evidence is, I agree, rather confusing and sketchy, and capable of different interpretations. The New Testament is not an “encyclopedia of Christianity.” I have no doubt that there was a great diversity in early Christian ministry: but I fail to see how this leads to the inevitable conclusion that there absolutely was no Christian priesthood until someone, apart from or against the wishes of Christ, invented one.
Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt to the historic Church and its own account of how its ministry and structure developed. It could be “eisegesis” but it’s hard for me to comprehend how a community which not only began within a priestly, sacrificial religion, but also produced the high sacramentalism of the Gospel of John, the sacrificial/expiatory overtones of the Institution Narratives, and the vivid high priestly temple imagery of Hebrews, could not have had a sacramental order of ministry from the beginning.
Even if its too much to say, based on the evidence, that Jesus established or renewed a priesthood, I think it’s also a stretch for to say that the sort of ministry which we see immediately developing after Christ was entirely an invention of men and cannot possibly be due to God’s design or the will of Christ.
This is not a judgment that the historian can make, obviously, but I do think it’s a perfectly reasonable and prudential sort of judgment for a believer to make.
Anyhow, I don’t mean to start a big debate, but your comment got my uber-traditionalist liturgical goat a bit. :-)
I happily return your goat :-)
I’m also happy in a Church with priests (clearly)… I’m just not convinced by the non-historical argument.
How about if I phrased it thus: When the roman church says ‘priesthood’ she means to imply something encumbered with 2000 years of developing and evolving theology and while I don’t wish to underplay the part of the Holy Spirit in the Church, I also have to admit some doubt in that area. When she says “with out priests the church will die” I can’t accept that.
OK, I think I understand where you’re coming from a bit better now. :-)