On the Priesthood, One Body, One Church

"I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble; and none shall be missing, says the Lord." (Jer 23:4)


In this passage we have cause for joy, but also a cause for concern—joy because of what the prophet proclaims and concern because of what our brothers are saying. In this passage I see a disturbing trend where Protestants often ignore passages like this. Now it is not that many err completely but rather that there needs to be greater nuance in our treatment of this topic. Now, some take the notion "Jesus is the high priest" to mean that he is the only priest with authority, while others take it to mean that we all share equally in the priesthood that's the end of it.

But this is a prophetic message from Jeremiah, and we must remember that there are many types of prophetic utterances: some foretell God's wrath, His mercy, destruction, restoration, the end of days, or the coming of the New Age, i.e., the age of Christ. This proclamation (Jer 23:1-8) speaks of a passing away of an old order of priests, namely the Jewish priests (of his time) who engaged in idolatry and injustice. It then speaks of the establishment of a new order of priests and the reunification of the people of God from many lands. How is this clear? Jeremiah obviously calls these wicked priests the "shepherds who mislead and scatter my flock" (23:1) but then he uses "shepherds" again as those who will guide the people of God—these men are also priests. This message also clearly speaks of the coming of Christ for it says "I will raise up a righteous shoot to David" (23:5).

He prophesied all these things amidst the slow, painful, and gradual destruction of Jerusalem spiritually and physically.

Some will claim that we are all part of a universal priesthood and that we are made priests by virtue of His sacrifice. Now, we are indeed all called to all share in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices of Christ's ministry. But how, and in what way? First, we are all baptized to new life and by virtue of true baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit we enter into the Body of Christ, the Church. Now, some have excised themselves from this union through false doctrine and we urge all of them to consider carefully their separation from the Body with whom they cannot live without. This Body, nevertheless, is something that we enter and become a part of through holy Baptism. Since each of us become a member of the Body of Christ we are likewise sharers of His mission—the salvation of all souls.

We participate in the mission of Christ as priest, prophet, and king in the manner which we live our lives. We do this when we work towards the salvation of souls in the individual circumstances of our lives. In this way those who proclaim that we are saved just by an act of faith cheapen the mission of Christ. They do not cheapen it by their zeal, for they bring others to believe in Christ. But they cheapen this mission by not considering the many parts of this mission—that is to say they do not consider the many parts of the Body and their roles in this mission. If faith was the sole purpose of the mission then there would be no need for teachers, preachers, and shepherds because the only teacher and shepherd would be God. By this I mean that many proclaim that only the Holy Spirit guides them. We do not deny His guidance but we reject that the Holy Spirit does not inspire us to lead others when necessary and follow others when necessary. God does not only give us Himself but He also gives us each other so that we might be lead to Him (and in specific ways).

"It is an error, nay more, a very heresy, to seek to banish the devout life from the soldier’s guardroom, the mechanic’s workshop, the prince’s court, or the domestic hearth. Of course a purely contemplative devotion, such as is specially proper to the religious and monastic life, cannot be practised in these outer vocations, but there are various other kinds of devotion well-suited to lead those whose calling is secular, along the paths of perfection."
~Introduction to the Devout Life, St. Francis de Sales

Now it is true that everything good comes from God, but it is also true that not everything is God. Indeed "the very differences which the Lord has willed to put between the members of his body serve its unity and mission" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sec. 873). Some fulfill this mission as mothers, children, laborers, teachers, and priests. Others share in this mission by the virtues they have been given by the spirit such as humility, prudence, and love. All of these are parts of the one Body of Christ; all are not equal but work towards an equal goal.

So we are called to that ministry which Christ exercised—but if we all merely call ourselves priests of the same kind would we not also all be called shepherds? Who among us then are the sheep? Jer 23:1-8 clearly speaks of gathering all sheep (the faithful) together and giving them shepherds. The context of this prophecy is the coming of Christ, for he will be a wise king, a high priest, and the Good Shepherd. The promise of shepherds is priests in the order of the high priest.

We exercise that same priestly ministry of Christ insofar as we are a member of His Body—but just as some are meant to be teachers, other prophets, and others still interpreters (1 Cor 14:26-40). In this way, I call your attention to Paul's words: "Everything should be done for the sake of building up" (14:26). Similarly "like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 2:5). But how can anyone build a house with the same materials, let alone a temple to God? That is to say if we are all just materials of the same type how do we construct anything? How do we distinguish one thing from another, such as the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Some must be used for the wood (laborers), others must be the inscriptions that adorn the walls (teachers), and others the altar (priests).

We are many parts but one Body, we are different materials that make One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

A Church ready to gather all to herself.

But as it stands, many pick and choose what of the Old Law passes and what is fulfilled. As for me, Jeremiah promised a Messiah—which is true—and shepherds to protect the flock (people of God) so that they "need no longer fear and tremble" (23:4). Why should not this also be true?

I urge you to recall 2 Tim 1:6 where Paul tells Timothy to "stir into flame the gift of God [he was] given through the imposition of [Paul's] hands." What is this action? The imposition of hands was an act done by the Apostles in order to give authority to those seven holy men selected from among the people. Likewise, the imposition of hands by Ananias was decreed by God to give Saul (Paul) authority as His instrument (Acts 9:15-17).

Paul instructs Titus similarly that he should "appoint presbyters" in every town. Here he does not mean "elders" but priests (Titus 1:5). This is clear because the following formula was used for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:2-7. More still, when speaking of presbyters Paul also says "do not lay hands too readily on anyone" (1 Tim 5:22)—meaning that not all are priests according to that order. It is further telling—and those who value truth should read carefully—the gifts given by Paul, by the imposition of hands on Timothy and Titus (and not just anybody) give these men the authority to lay hands on others. So it is not anybody who can raise someone to the order or presbyter (that is, priest) but only those who were given such a gift by the Apostles, a gift that was conferred to them by Christ Himself. Not everyone is a priest according to this order, and not everyone has the authority to "preside" nor the responsibility of that office to "toil in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim 6:17).

Indeed, it was promised that "you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" Now, if this priesthood—a priesthood which offers sacrifice—was related to just one man why would it be called an "order"? The order of Levi has passed away but the order of Melchizedek will never pass away because Christ does not pass away (Heb 7:24). If we are to take the promise of Jeremiah seriously, and the author of Hebrews in conjunction with him, who could deny a specific and unique priesthood though which we have shepherds for God people? Furthermore, the high priest has made a sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice, of Himself. As the high priest of the order of Melchizedek his priests are called to offer sacrifice, and more fascinating offer the perfect and eternal sacrifice—Jesus Christ. For the eternal priest is also an eternal sacrifice given for all.

This is what is really happening at the conferal of Holy Orders. A young man joins a noble and heavenly calling, begun by Christ, through His Apostles, to the present day. As he enters into that priesthood by which he was be Christ in a very special way for others he must also be willing, like Christ, to give his life for his sheep.

 It is truly fitting we have such a high priest who, at the right hand of the Father, offers an eternal sacrifice and intercedes for us. As both victim and priest he not only reigns eternally but, by equal amounts of his love and humility, gives His Body and Blood for eternity as a blameless sacrifice. For if the priesthood is established in that eternal high priest, then sacrifices of those in the order of that priesthood do not offer temporal sacrifices, like the blood of bulls and rams, but an eternal and acceptable sacrifice. Indeed the Eucharist is rightly considered a sacrifice of praise. And although this spiritual and perfect sacrifice is offered by all we must recall to our hearts once more that we are the Body of Christ. As a Body of many parts we also recognize that although our whole being prays only the lips can speak praise, only the legs can kneel, only the head can bow, and only the hands can raise the sacrifice. But all together give thanks by their unique actions. So too do the laity and the priest, though different, give thanks for that same sacrifice for which they share and are beneficiaries.

So heed these words which I write, especially those who disbelieve of the order of priests and an eternal sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was truly "once for all" in that He is the acceptable sacrifice to the Father. But if we do not connect this with the other truths of Scripture we live a lie and we drink poison. For when I and my brethren are confronted with the usual quotes, our detractors, when responded to, will simply say that one bit of Scripture trumps the other (in essence). We accept a universal priesthood as we all should, but then some of you deny the very Scriptural, prophetic, necessary, and authoritative priesthood promised by the prophets, fulfilled by Christ, and enacted through His Apostles and their successors. Do not turn Scripture into a book of mere opinions but see the coherence within. The presence of two truths, even truths that seem to contradict one another, sometimes leads to an even greater, hidden truth not readily seen. We must look to Scripture and the Tradition that gave it to us if we are to passionately search for truth and, with equal love, hold onto it.

______________

Special thanks to God, of course, but also his servant Padre Cristobal for his inspiring, wonderful, and beautiful homily about the need to work hard, as Catholics. The need to study, work towards virtues, work at ridding ourselves of vices, using the sacrament of Confession, and seeking spiritual guidance from your priests. "No es facil, pero nececitamos trabajar duro por Christo y su iglesia." (It's not easy, but we need to work hard for Christ and His Church). He spoke for 30 minutes, I could have listened 90 more.

Pray for our priests, pray for your priests, and for the love of God seek his guidance in Spiritual things if you find him to be trustworthy and hard working. And if you don't know yet....get out there and find out--make him better by your own desire to be better. That is (but one) beauty of the Church

For Those Who Deride Christian Morals: Initial Response

An introduction:
Okay, so maybe I got a little out of hand with the length. In that sense I may consider streamlining and simplifying what I've done here.
 
That being said the overall purpose of this piece is to provide a response to those who ridicule, critique, or speak out against Christian morality and in turn posit a secularist/atheist/humanist morality as superior, more rational, or whatnot.

The problem I've seen is that most secularists (etc.) do not really understand morality (the science) and many Christians do not understand morals (the nature).
 
I seek, perhaps foolishly, to address both problems. As I mention above the scope is rather large and far-reaching. I revised and expanding on my central claims so much I had to split it up. The whole thing was intended to be 3-single spaced pages. The first theme ended up being that length.

Here I do not seek to call atheists (etc.) immoral or stupid, but I will challenge that the morality they propose is incomplete. The problem is that "faith" has becomes a quick word to mean gullibility, stupidity, or naivety by a number of people--I can't say that Christians have always acted or spoken valiantly to the contrary. Nevertheless, I am never one who intends or wishes to present a weak opposition to support what I believe--just the opposite.

This may be a bit tough and my worry is that it won't seem organized enough. I tried my best to keep focus on some important points but I fear some deficiencies will arise. That is why I feel this piece may require some revisions despite heavy revisions already applied.

I just ask that you try and follow me, asking questions along the way. ~M

______


There are those who might deride Christian morals in that Christians "follow God" or "follow the Church." They, in turn, might also say of themselves that "we're good on our own." Below I would like to address this contention in both a positive and critical way. I fear that the scope of this piece will be broad, so I will break it into smaller segments. Even then, I will touch on matters such as faith, community, Tradition, the Church, and morality, among other subjects. I will attempt to weave in and out of topics with care. My hope is that my reader will catch me when I falter and hold me accountable to providing a cohesive account.

What I will do is begin by introducing the context by which I see faith and morality. I will also do this in regards to the Catholic Church, meaning that I will give a (very) brief explanation for the importance authority and Tradition. This will all be done to confront and explain some of the notions that often serve as ground for critiques. These themes, however, will only be touched on in this first part but expanded after I introduce some critiques by secularists, humanists, and atheists in the second part. Therein I will address some of their arguments and, hopefully, show their deficiencies. At the same time, however, I want to clear up some confusion about the relationship of faith and morals that fuels some of these critiques—both Atheists to Christians and the other way around. I will then return to morality that is informed by faith and what that means. Finally, I will comment on what the "force" of morality is and where it comes from. There is little better way to begin than jumping right in.

When one says that Christians do things out of duty or obligation he is only half correct. But this is not a legalistic duty but a duty that comes about by a real relationship. If you love someone you give your all to that person or, at the very least, you learn to over time. Catholics are a covenant people, meaning that we enter into a relationship with our Creator such that "we shall be His people, and He will be our God" (cf. Ex 6:7a, Jer 30:22,  Lev 26:12). The language used is not one of servant and master, though we rightly call Christ master and teacher. Rather, the language Christ uses is very clear: he taught us to pray "our Father;" he no longer calls us servants but friends. Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. The language concerning God and his people and Christ and his Church is used for a specific purpose and for a very important reason—one which I shall elaborate on later.

Now, amid the complexities of life and morals we trust the Church as she preserves for us the wisdom of many ages whether they are  temptations, failures, trials, or triumphs. We also train men (as priests) and men and women (as chaste religious) to guide us. These men and women are specially trained to know God, to know how to pray, to understand the human soul and, in humility, to serve others so they might know God. Just as good parents teach their children how to be good parents themselves, so too do we look up to the Church and holy and learned men and women to teach us how to love God better (and to love ourselves and others better as well). As such, we assent to their authority on account of their worthy actions and learning.

Yet, what son or daughter respects an abusive parent? So too, what man seeking God follows a man who cannot lead him? On the other hand, how many sons and daughters neglect the teaching of good parents? How many more faithful men and women, in closing their ears and hearts, neglect the wisdom and urging of holy men and women? This is why we need to form good relationships with one another.

Not only that, God, the Church, and all these men and women (clergy, religious, and lay), want to establish a relationship with each of us based on trust and love. Any relationship, though, involves a change and a transition. Because of this is has its own unique set of growing pains and how we deal with those pains can make the relationship a difficult and rocky one at times. We all know how difficult relationships can be with one another.

We Catholics must keep in mind specifically that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ—our relationship is not only as bride to bridegroom. But we are also related to each other, not only as brother and sister but as veins to the heart, arms to their sockets, and lungs to the mouth. We, as members of one body, members of the faithful, cannot survive without one another.

Faith plays an important role—it draws together many to God as well as to each other. Faith is more than trust in a proven idea or theorem. It is a dynamic trust in a person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says "Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person" (sec. 150).

I do not deny those who claim that there is a personal element to faith, but I deny that faith is and remains a personal element. Faith moves one to act just as faith itself is an action in response to something, namely God acting in our lives. This is true because "it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason" (CCC 154). One must hear the Word before he trusts the Word in its fullness. Faith is personal insofar as how we've come to know and believe but it is communal insofar as what is believed and whom we believe in.

So, to summarize, faith is a matter of community and relationships just as morality is. Is faith just a type of morality or something super-added to morality? I propose that faith is not a type of morality or something grafted onto morality, but I will claim that morality that is informed by faith is more complete, whole, and true. I am, however, perhaps getting ahead of myself. Let us consider some things before we turn to secularism, humanism, and atheism and their claims/critiques.

Here are some important primary considerations of faith and morality which will guide us beyond this point.

First of all, faith is an experience and a response. Just as Christ descended in the Incarnation he also rose at the Resurrection and Ascension. God comes to us and he raises us up. But, how was that rising possible? By following the will of the Father and responding to his grace. Remember that faith is a free assent to the truth. It is also a relationship between two persons, an adherence to God. In this manner faith is, as I have said, dynamic in a way that a relationship between two friends or spouses is dynamic—it is never always clearly defined but it is all the same a bond that is always present.

Secondly, we must talk about morality in greater depth. The word itself derives its meaning from the Latin word "mores" meaning custom or ways. The Greek similarly has "ethos" (custom, practice) [ethics] and "nomos" (custom, law) that came to describe personal character and make-up.

Thus, when we speak of morality we are talking about the character of the individual. Now, there are many schools about how a character, but what I propose is both the classical and normative consideration. One derives his character from three sources:

The first is order, that is to say learning precision and clarity in ones actions and decisions. When we are left to our own devices we might learn, but not without consequences. When we are taught right from wrong (properly) we do what is good and avoid what is bad or evil.

The second is habit, which is to say an action practiced such that it becomes a part of us.

The third is rules, principles, tradition, and customs. Conveniently these words are contained in one Greek word, "nomos." This is to say that a character is formed by principles and ideologies for action—and this is important—precisely because an individual's character is not limited to himself (as an island unto himself) but rather as a character who lives among other persons. It might be said that principles, traditions, and customs are the "voice of generations" who assert that this is the 'right way to live.' Now, this does not mean it is immune to a critical mind and eye, but we should respect the force of tradition—even if only for a little while.

Whether it is faith or morals, I argue that both of them deal with the individual but always in a lens that has the greater whole, or others, in mind. One does not have faith merely for salvation but to be "as Christ to others" and that means sacrifice, service, speaking the truth, and love. This too I will elaborate on later. For now we will shift our focus to critiques to these claims above as well as other critiques.


[to be continued in part 2/3]