Theology of the Priesthood

PREFACE

This translation of Teologia del Sacerdozio by Jean Galot, S.J., was prepared by Reverend Roger Balducelli, O.S.F.S., who worked from the Italian text while giving careful attention to the French translation which was published by section in Esprit et vie. Ignatius Press is grateful to Father Balducelli for his translation and to Reverend Monsignor Richard Malone for his assistance as General Editor. It is hoped that this translation will be of service to priests, seminarians and lay persons who wish to deepen their understanding of Vatican II theology of the priesthood.

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbott      The Documents of Vatican II, ed. W. M. Abbott (New York, 1966)

AAS        Acta Apostolicae Sedis

Bi           Biblica

BLE      Bulletin de Litérature Ecclésiastique

BTB      Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZ         Biblische Zeitschrift

CBQ      Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CC          Corpus Christianorum

CSEL       Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

DS          H. Denzinger-A. Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum (32nd ed.; Freiburg, 1963)

ETL       Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

GCS       Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig)

Gr           Gregorianum

LG          Lumen Gentium

NRT       Nouvelle Revue Théologique

NT          Novum Testamentum

NTS       New Testament Studies

PG          Patrologia Graeca (ed. J. P. Migne)

PL          Patrologia Latina (ed. J. P. Migne)

PO          Praestyterorum Ordinis

RSR       Recherches de Science Religieuse

RSPT      Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques

RTL       Revue Théologique de Louvain

Schroeder      Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. H. J. Schroeder (St. Louis, 1941)

TTZ       Trierer theologische Zeitschrift

ZNW       Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CHAPTER I

THE DEFINITION OF THE PRIESTHOOD

When we seek to ascertain the meaning of the ministerial priesthood and the relation it bears to the priesthood of the faithful, we are faced with the prior problem of defining the nature of the priesthood. By what method can this definition be achieved?

A. INADEQUATE CRITERIA

1. SOCIOLOGY

One method would be to resort to the principles of sociology and ascertain what requirements must be met if a community of faith is to function. The life of such a community presupposes a leadership function and so requires persons who will exercise this function, this ministry. Sociology would also make it possible to establish which conditions must be met by those who assume this function at any point in time in order to achieve the greatest measure of effectiveness. This approach has been espoused in order to produce a renewed conception of ministry according to which the ministry consists of the mission and the power, officially conferred by the Christian community, of presiding over the community in accordance with the gospel by introducing it to the sense of life and supplying the inspiration for all its activities in this world.¹

The report in which this definition was contained made no reference to the fact that the priesthood was instituted by Christ, nor for that matter to the fact that Christ instituted the Church. It considered only one societal fact: people seeking to preserve a Christian inspiration in their midst. Moreover, the report openly dissented from those who claim to discover in the New Testament a precise model of what ministry should be and to this model credit the validity of a definitive norm. It objected to any absolutizing of an ecclesial structure and posited that the organization of ministry has always been contingent on circumstances of time and place. Accordingly, it maintained that our conception of ministry should be determined by the specific needs of our own time.

This exclusively sociological definition of ministry was taken to task by the assembly to which it was presented and amended by adding that the minister is a witness, commissioned and accountable, of the definitive deed of salvation in Jesus Christ.² This was only a minor correction, but it did betray the awareness that sociological considerations are not sufficient when it comes to working out a doctrine of ministry.

There is a reason why a sociological criterion will never do: the Church may not be looked upon as just one society among many, nor may her structure be determined in keeping with the general laws which preside over the development of society generally. The Church is a unique society, founded by Christ to impart God’s grace of salvation to mankind. The nature of the priesthood depends in an essential way on the conditions surrounding the imparting of this grace. It follows that the problem of ministry should not be reduced to the problem annexed to the leadership function as it obtains in other societies. This does not mean that the impact of societal conditions need not be taken into account. Considerations of the sociological kind play a role in determining in what way the priest should adjust to the mentality of his own time, but they should not constitute the final criterion when deciding what the priest is or ought to be.

The changes that have recently occurred in our world seem to some so overwhelming as to lead them to conclude that a corresponding transformation is indispensable in the priesthood and in the Church as well. In the Church of the future, which will be different, the one who is priest for ever will also be different.³ It is true that the evolution of society entails of necessity evolution in the conditions that surround the lives of priests, and consequently in their manner of life, yet the priest remains fundamentally the priest for ever. The changes in the ambient world could never induce a change in the nature of the priesthood. The same applies to the Church which engages in a dialogue with the world and is exposed to its influence, yet is not indebted to it either for her existence or basic structure. In her most fundamental nature, she remains unchanged in spite of all the upheavals in society.

2. THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

In order to determine what the Christian priesthood is, one could inquire what the priesthood has been in the various religions, extract from this inquiry an image of the priest, and then estimate how this image is to be verified in the Church.

The difficulty attached to this method leaps to the eye. The religions, whether of primitive societies or of peoples culturally more advanced, are considerable in number. The inquiry just mentioned would be quite extensive.⁴ Besides, one would collect from it disparate conceptions: there are religions without priests.⁵ In religions which have priests, their status and role differ from case to case. L. Sabourin remarks: No notion of priesthood can be found which would uniformly apply to the multifarious expressions of it in the religions of mankind.⁶

In spite of this difficulty—which makes a synthetic view so laborious—some observations are worth retaining. What does the priest look like in the world of religions? Usually, he is understood to be a person who specializes in the performance of ritual or cultic functions. He differs from the magician who claims the capacity to exercise a direct control over the forces of nature by secretly manipulating a nonpersonal energy. The magician’s activity is characterized by its automatism, whereas the function of the priest is precisely cultic and seeks to establish personal relations with superior forces with a view to securing their protection.⁷

The priesthood as specialty does not exist everywhere. We notice cases in which ritual functions can be exercised by the heads of families or clans. It has also been noted that there exists in the religions a counterpart of sorts to what is known in the Church as the priesthood of the faithful, as contraposed to the ministerial priesthood.⁸ There are so-called natural cultic functions which are not identified with a specialized priesthood but remain the prerogative of ordinary individuals or chiefs even where priesthoods have been established. An established priesthood can never entirely take the place of the faithful before God. It is interesting to note that with rare exceptions, the highest god has no idol, no temple, no priests. . . . The situation differs entirely when powers below the highest god or local deities are involved.⁹

When specialization occurs, and personages appear on the scene who are entrusted with functions exclusively ritual, sacred powers—just as political powers—need to be conferred ritually, or sanctioned, after initiation has been imparted. The priest must be ‘consecrated’. These initiations and consecrations display patterns similar to those that obtain in tribal initiations.¹⁰

Specialization affords the prestige of power and knowledge, which then fosters on the part of the specialists the development of a science of the sacred, first of sacred rituals, then of the legitimation of rituals. While the sacred is permanent, political circumstances are subject to change. The latter can create specializations in which the specialists of the sacred turn out to be the only prestigious social group still left on the scene, and in which they are called upon to function in a universal subsidiary capacity in matters of business and trade, politics, culture, etc. They can then acquire class or caste privileges against which other classes will later struggle.¹¹

This explains how the priesthood occasions the problems annexed to the blending of competencies. These deserve consideration, especially in two areas. In the political domain, there is a kingship credited with sacredness—which gives us the king-priest. In the religious domain, there is a priesthood that bears a more direct relation to the godhead—which gives rise to a blend of priesthood and prophetism.

With respect to sacred kingship, J. Goetz mentions two interpretations: magical kingship, the bearer of cosmic energy, and divine kingship, endowed with a more personal mode of power, which resembles the image of the supreme power of the godhead. In the latter conception, kings are called Sons of Heaven, or more frequently, Sons of the Sun. In this context there may arise the problem of the king-priest. The king, who is the son of the god, is the priest of his own father, but he may either insure the cult in person or entrust the responsibility of ritual functions to civil servants.¹²

It is interesting to note that king-priests are found in the ancient Near East. The Assyrian kings are regarded as the priests of the god Assur. The Hittite king normally delegates his priestly functions, but he officiates in person as high priest at certain festivals. In Egypt, the Pharaoh is theoretically entrusted with the duty of attending to the official cult of the gods, but in practice the priests perform the rituals and administer the affairs of the temples in the name of the king.¹³

The case of the king-priest should be distinguished from that of the priest-king. The priest, and the magician as well, can become king, or secure a kingdom, but not in his quality as priest. He has the mettle of a chief or of a king and will know how to use his religious prestige to set up a state for personal gain.¹⁴

The other problem concerns a priesthood that borders on prophetism and shamanism. Shamanism has been called an ecstatic priesthood.¹⁵ Strictly speaking, shamans are not priests, since the mediation in which they engage is not ritual but personal by nature. It is carried out in a state of ecstasy and is limited to the world of the spirits.¹⁶ The shaman is a seer possessed by the spirits. One becomes a shaman by way of a mystical gift, not through ritual consecration. However, the initiation ceremony includes facets which are institutional.

Prophetism, too, differs from priesthood. Prophets are seers who, thanks to an intense personal experience, feel called upon to speak. Their mission is to awaken the religious conscience of the people. This mission entails suffering and sometimes even death as the crowning moment in the prophet’s career.¹⁷ In spite of the difference between prophet and priest points of contact exist in some more remarkable cases. In Iranian religion, Zarathustra is a professional priest and a prophet or seer.¹⁸

The blending of kingship and priesthood is traceable to the confusion that can exist between political activity and religious functions. This confusion is especially noticeable whenever the political function is endowed with sacredness. The blending of priesthood with prophetism can be accounted for with even greater ease, since both functions are concerned with the relation between man and the godhead. Note in particular that the distinction made between priest and prophet has a way of alerting us to the narrow dimensions of any notion of priesthood that would be restricted to the ritual facet of religion.

It would be arbitrary to ascribe to this notion a normative validity. In view of its narrowness, one is bound to ask whether Christianity did not transcend these boundaries and give to the priesthood the significance of a richer and more comprehensive mode of religious mediation.

There is a reason to be cautious of criteria for determining what the priesthood ought to be based on the history of pagan religions. It is a reason that involves a principle. As Saint Paul remarks, these religions were only guardians and administrators (Gal 4:2). They were powerless to lead people to the mystery of salvation. They could do no more than prepare them for this great new mystery. It is not in these religions that we can hope to discover the total value which the priesthood has acquired in Christianity.

3. THE OLD TESTAMENT

Is it possible to discern in the Old Testament data a notion of the priesthood applicable to the Christian priesthood? One would think so, since Jewish revelation plays the role of promise and prefiguration.

Briefly, in Judaism and in its historical development we can distinguish two forms of the reality of the priesthood.¹⁹

In the first place, there is the non-specialized exercise of priestly functions. During the age of the patriarchs, these functions are carried out by the heads of families or clans. Later, Moses, not a priest in the strict sense,²⁰ performs in has capacity as the leader of his people ritual functions such as the sacrificial ritual of the covenant (Ex 24:3-8). During the age of the monarchy, the kings, David and Solomon in particular, exercise priestly activities of the king-priest variety in accord with the pattern that appears in many monarchies in the Near East. Melchizedek is a particular instance of the king-priest outside the Jewish nation. His meeting with Abraham is recounted in Genesis (14:18-20).²¹

During the period of the Judges, there emerges a specialized priestly function connected with the tribe of Levi. The clergy is hereditary. It consists of Levites and priests under the supreme authority of the high priest. Groups of cultic prophets may have been absorbed into the priesthood,²² thus favoring the blending of prophetic and priestly competencies.²³ In this connection, the question arises whether priests were assigned a prophetic or doctrinal function. The functions of priests were mainly cultic, yet at the beginning priests would also deliver oracles to disclose the will of God. Later, they were entrusted with the task of preserving and handing down the law (Dt 33:10). This was a limited function. A properly doctrinal teaching function in Israel belonged not to the priest but to the wise man.²⁴ After the Exile, the law was interpreted by legal scholars and by the scribes. The priests confined their activity more and more exclusively to the area of worship, the offering of sacrifices being the most important of their duties.

This cultic specialization goes hand in hand with a theological development which puts the accent on priestly holiness, a holiness which is sacral and ritual rather than moral. It contrasts with the relatively scanty holiness of the rest of the community. It is because the priests and the Levites are holy that they may take charge of the objects belonging to the Temple (Ezra 8:28, 30) and enter into the Temple (2 Chron 23:6; 35:5).²⁵

If so, what are we to make of the fact that a priestly holiness is ascribed to the people as a whole? I will count you a kingdom of priests, a consecrated [lit. ‘holy’] nation (Ex 19:16). Since the context of this declaration is not strictly ritual, some exegetes take a kingdom of priests to mean a nation whose rulers are priests.²⁶ In this perspective, the people is holy because the religious mentality behind the text envisages the ritual holiness inherent in the priestly ruling power as something flowing down to affect the people ruled. . . .²⁷ Be that as it may, it would be incorrect to maintain that Exodus 19:6 advocates the notion that the cultic functions attributed to priests, and the holiness that these functions require of them, are transferred to the whole people. According to many other commentators, the expression kingdom of priests should be taken to refer to a priesthood directly attributed to the whole people. Opinions vary as to the significance of this priesthood. It does no doubt entail a holiness imparted by God, but we can hardly maintain that the whole nation is assigned a role similar to that of the priests. This would be equivalent to suppressing the privilege reserved to the tribe of Levi. Jewish tradition does not interpret Exodus 19:6 in this sense. It is of course true that the prophetic oracle of Isaiah (Is 61:6) announces: . . . you will be named ‘priests of Yahweh’, they will call you ‘ministers of our God’. But we are dealing here with an eschatological vision according to which the Jewish nation will enjoy a privileged position similar to that of the priestly caste; it will have dominion over the nations, and these will be subservient to it.

Even if we make allowance for this opening toward the emergence of a priestly people, the Old Testament notion of priesthood can be characterized by describing the priest in terms of cultic functions deriving from a state of holiness and by stressing that the cultic specialization shows points of contact with both the function of governance and the prophetic function, that is, the mission to teach.

As we gather these data, we should note that we are not in principle entitled to extract from them an ideal of the priesthood to be realized as it is in the Church, for the figure may still be a far cry from the reality. Nor can we overlook the distance between Jewish hope and Christian fulfillment. The mystery of the Incarnation has exceeded by far the doctrinal framework of Jewish religion and the messianic expectation. A transformation of worship is implied. The act of redemption brings about a change also in the conditions surrounding the offering of sacrifice. The innovation which Christ brought into the world necessarily affects the priesthood. Consequently, the priesthood of the Old Testament should be regarded only as a starting point. It is not a norm or a definitive criterion, but it can help to perceive distinctly what is new in the Christian priesthood.

B. CHRIST, SOURCE AND MODEL OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD

When defining the Christian priesthood, we should not start with merely a general notion of the priesthood, whether derived from sociology or furnished by the history of religions, and then go on to show how this notion is verified in the Church. Nor should we infer from the priesthood of the Old Testament what the priesthood of the New Covenant should be. It is in Christ himself that we must try to discern the traits of the new and definitive priesthood. The information coming from the religions of the world and from the Jewish dispensation can certainly help us to understand what constitutes this priesthood, but it is Jesus’ own reality that must count as decisive. Only Christ can throw light, a full light, on the priesthood, and this for two reasons: he instituted the Christian priesthood, and he realized in his own self the model of that priesthood.

1. OBJECTIONS

The priesthood of Christ has been recognized by some as the prototype of the priesthood shared by the faithful but not specifically of the ministerial priesthood.²⁸ This position has been grounded on the principle that what derives from Christ is Christian existence as a whole. We may not seek in Christ the norm by which to determine the various charisms and functions that impart life to the Church, including priesthood and authority. From this viewpoint there is no reason why priesthood and authority should be privileged.²⁹ This means that we are not entitled to seek in Christ the image of the priest and the characteristic attributes of the minister, nor to let our definition of the priesthood be grounded on Christ.

This negative position goes hand in hand with the reaction against the traditional doctrine which maintains that the priesthood was instituted by Christ and with the reaction against the doctrine which advocates that the ministerial empowerment be exercised in the name of Christ, in persona Christi.

The historical institution of the priesthood is attacked. Some theologians are known to substitute for a ministry instituted by Christ a ministry surfacing in the Church under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. In an effort to usher in a new configuration for the priesthood, J. Moingt suggests not a substitution but a splitting.³⁰ Next to a ministry of the gospel connected with the apostles through historical succession, he advocates a ministry of the communities, called forth by the Spirit independently of any succession and defined in accordance with the community’s needs. To be more precise, the latter form of ministry, which embodies the Church’s hope for the future, takes its origin from the formation of the community, from the community’s empowerment to govern itself, or emanates from the Spirit shared by a group of Christians who have achieved a collective existence and enjoy the recognition of the Church.³¹

Others set the two conceptions of ministry one against the other in order to replace the one by the other. A christomonistic conception of the Church, that is, a conception centered on Christ alone, would be objectionable, for it would leave no room for the Holy Spirit.³² If so, over against a Church which bears to Christ the relation any society bears to its founder, and recognizes the powers bequeathed to the apostles and the hierarchy,³³ there ought to emerge a ministry evoked by the Holy Spirit in the local churches.

Instead of deriving the priesthood from Christ, and so creating a host of problems, we should depend on pneumatalogical deduction as well as on ecclesiological observation, for the crucial question is this: which charisms and functions does the Spirit evoke in the Church in order to make Christ present in her midst and prolong within her the mission once entrusted to the apostles?³⁴

By severing the historical link between ministry and Christ, and by conceiving the ministry as a gift of the Spirit given now and adapted to the community’s needs, the theologian would create a greater margin of freedom to work out a doctrine of the priesthood. Likewise, Church leaders would enjoy greater self-determination in organizing the ministry.

It follows in addition that the ministry is not regarded as a power to be exercised in the name of Christ, since it no longer stems from a power imparted by Christ to the apostles. We must do more, then, than merely to denounce the prestige and the power priests enjoy in society.³⁵ A blow must be struck at the very roots of a doctrine which advocates a religious power in some way identified with the power of Christ the Head.³⁶ The hostile reactions against the hierarchical power of the Church, and against the Church’s claim to infallibility in the making of certain doctrinal decisions, lend support to a notion of a ministry which is to be no longer the expression of an empowerment but the result of an inspiration of the Spirit. Even the conception of the priest as a representative and vicar of Christ is taken to task. Here on earth, we are told, representation applies only to suffering and service. Therefore, any exercise of power must be excluded.³⁷

2. THE EVANGELICAL FOUNDATION

It is arbitrary to regard Christ only as the prototype of the priesthood shared by all the faithful. We must acknowledge in him also the prototype of the ministerial priesthood.³⁸ Christ presents himself as the model of this priesthood when he discloses to his apostles the meaning of the authority to be conferred upon them. Unlike the heads of civil society, eager for recognition and bent on making the weight of their authority felt, the apostles will have to conduct themselves as servants, following the example of the Son of Man who came to serve, not to be served, and to serve even unto death (Mk 10:42-45; Mt 20:25-29).³⁹ If, in the Church, priests are called upon to exercise power as a service, it is because Christ did so first, and his way is normative for his disciples. The shepherd’s authority entrusted to the Twelve, characteristic as it is of the new priesthood, is explicitly envisaged as the prolongation of Jesus’ own pastoral authority. The ministerial quality of this priesthood is traceable to the explicit will of the Master, as well as to his personal example. Ministry means service, a service whose definitive model is to be found in the Savior of mankind.

A nuance in the text of the gospels needs to be mentioned at this point. Matthew 20:28 reads: just as the Son of Man came, which is a reference to the role of model. Mark 10:45 puts the stress on cause. It reads: For the Son of Man himself did not come. . . . Because he conducts himself as a minister, Christ becomes the source and model of the ministerial priesthood of his disciples.⁴⁰

The fact that Jesus himself disclosed this fundamental position disposes conclusively of all the objections that might be raised in this domain. It is true that we should not try to find in Christ the specific model of all the charisms and functions exercised in the Church. However, the ministerial priesthood assumes an essential importance in the structure of the Church. It cannot be regarded as just one charism among many others. This importance emerges especially from the fact that Jesus presents his own redemptive mission as the prototype of the ministry of the disciples. In the whole work of salvation nothing greater or more fundamental can constitute the source and the model of the priesthood.

It is in Christ, then, that we must discover the distinctive attributes of the ministerial priesthood. In him we find the origin of this priesthood, not only because he is responsible for the institution of it, but above all because in his own person he gives the priesthood its initial and ideal configuration. The priesthood takes shape in him, so to speak, before taking shape in the Church.

This doctrine should not be attacked on the plea that it is so exclusively centered on Christ that, by implication, Christ comes to exercise an excessive monopoly on the priesthood. It is true that the priesthood is realized in Jesus in its integrity and perfection, and that we should not seek elsewhere the source and model of it. Yet Christ willed to impart to the apostles precisely the ministerial priesthood which he possessed in all its plenitude, and he transmitted it to them as a personal mission and a personal empowerment. He made of his priests not mere instruments but genuine co-workers.

Nor can a priesthood grounded on Christ be replaced by one evoked by the Holy Spirit. The historical institution of the priestly ministry by Christ does not exclude the role of the Holy Spirit but requires it, just as the institution of the Church requires the action of the Holy Spirit which has been manifest since Pentecost. In particular, the Holy Spirit has led the Church to understand what Jesus intended when instituting the priesthood. He has caused her to translate into reality what was present in the Savior’s intention, while adapting this realization to the stage the Christian community had reached in its development. In this sense, it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the concrete forms the ministerial priesthood has taken from age to age. And yet never does the Holy Spirit take the place of Christ, for he acts in order to bring out what Jesus intended the priesthood to be, his design for it as disclosed in the gospels. It is to the very priesthood of Christ that the Spirit lends shape and to which he imparts growth in the priests. He is the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9).⁴¹ Jesus says: . . . all he tells you will be taken from what is mine (Jn 16:24).⁴²

We are not entitled, then, to fancy two parallel kinds of priestly ministry, one linked to Christ, the other dependent on the Spirit, nor to maintain that the Holy Spirit initiated and created the ministry which the tradition of the Church later attributed to Christ. To forsake the principle that the priesthood was historically instituted by Christ is to resist the basic thrust of the action of the Holy Spirit himself. This action is always consistent with that primordial historical fact.

Just as we should not substitute, in our consideration of the origins of the priestly ministry, the person of the Holy Spirit for that of the incarnate Son, so too we should not suggest that a process of ecclesiological reasoning ought to replace christological reasoning. Here again, there is no dilemma: we are not forced to choose, for there is a basic accord. The ministerial priesthood can be understood only within the framework of the Church; it is integral to the structured reality which is the Christian community. Consequently, any inquiry that concerns the nature of the ministry is ecclesiological. It is at the same time christological, since the Church draws her life from Christ. Another more particular reason is that the priesthood of the Church did not just take shape in Christ once upon a time. Even today, it finds in him its source and characteristic attributes. There is then no need to choose between Christ and the Church as the foundation of the priesthood. Christ is this foundation, the Christ who founded the Church, and continues to be present in her.

It has been claimed that the theologian could be given greater freedom in rethinking the nature of the priesthood and that Church leaders could then set out to reinvent a priesthood more adapted to the needs and aspirations of our time. But note that this freedom could hardly be unlimited. We cannot constitute a priesthood more congruent with the finality of the Church, and more effective, by parting company with the will of Christ who instituted the priesthood. In fact, many recent proposals on the priesthood derive from the conviction that, in our time, we are able to engineer a priestly ministry different from the one hitherto exercised in the Church and one which claims a historical link with Christ through apostolic succession. This link is contested, and this is the reason why there arises in today’s Church the problem of determining what a new priesthood should be like.⁴³ In fact, the Church herself is not at liberty to depart from what her founder once decided. Likewise, when the creative freedom of the theologian dissociates itself from the new priesthood as established by Christ, it ceases to engender a genuinely theological thought grounded on revelation.

Finally, the reactions against the empowerment of the priest, and the absoluteness it claims when exercised in the name of Christ, cannot legitimize the attempt at dissociating the priesthood of priests from that of Christ. The criticism of abuses in the exercise of priestly authority is understandable. Admittedly, priests are not exempt from faults and deviations in the performance of their duties. But there is no reason why the repudiation of these abuses should lead anyone to disavow the power immanent in the priesthood itself.⁴⁴

Jesus did not suppress power: he willed that power be exercised as a service, but without abridging its authority. By desiring that this authority be exercised in his name, he conferred upon it the highest validity. The most significant indication in this regard is to be found in the Eucharist. The words Do this as a memorial of me (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25) bespeak the mission and power to reiterate, in the name of Jesus, the redemptive offering through the consecration of bread and wine.

If the priest is a representative of Christ and exercises certain powers in his name, the reason is that Jesus himself so decided. This empowerment is conferred only for the sake of a mission and should be understood only in the sense of a humble service. And yet it remains a power. Those who resist any power, priestly power included, fail to understand that Jesus intended to change the meaning of power by impressing a new configuration on it. The model of power is to be found in the priesthood of Christ himself. This, model differs from all other human models of power.

CHAPTER II

THE WITNESS OF JESUS

CONCERNING HIS OWN PRIESTHOOD

In a study of the New Testament evidence relative to the priesthood of Christ, one tends to turn directly to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the only writing that speaks explicitly of Christ as priest.¹

This Epistle contains a comprehensive doctrine on the priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God, cast within the cultic framework of the Old Testament, which is itself construed as a prefiguration whose whole reality is to be found in Jesus proclaimed forever a priest of the order of Melchizedek. But note that the doctrine worked out by this Epistle rests on what the early tradition had imparted concerning the deeds and sayings of Jesus. It suggests, therefore, an inquiry into Jesus’ description of his own mission.² It invites us to recognize in Jesus the priest par excellence and thus offers us a decisive clue whereby to interpret the data we find in the gospels. It cannot dispense us from undertaking first the exploration of the witness which Jesus himself bears concerning his own priesthood. The innovation which is the Christian priesthood derives from the originality proper to Christ and must be discovered first in Christ as portrayed in the gospels. The fact that an explicit doctrine of the priesthood fails to appear in the gospels does not discourage this inquiry, but it is rather a good reason for undertaking it. Prescinding from a theoretical doctrinal statement, how did Jesus conceive and live his priesthood?

A. JESUS AND THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD

1. THE ABSENCE OF THE TITLE PRIEST

A preliminary problem arises due to the language used in the gospels. There, Jesus is never called a priest, nor does he ever speak of priesthood or priests when describing the role of his apostles or defining their identity. This reticence seems to contrast with the fact that the Church credits to Jesus the high priesthood. What is the reason behind it? Some have taken it to mean that Jesus did not regard himself as a priest, or even that he intended to do away with the priesthood altogether.³

However, the absence of a term does not necessarily mean that the referent of that term is also absent. Terminology should not be simply equated with thought-in-depth.

Note first that the absence of priestly terminology in the sayings of Jesus is consistent with a historical fact: Jesus recoils from describing himself by means of titles. He does not give himself the titles the Christian community was to use later. He does not explicitly call himself Messiah, Christ, Lord, Son of God,⁴ Incarnate Word, or Redeemer. Behind this attitude on his part there lies, among other things, the desire not to reduce the disclosure of his personal identity to a linguistic transaction. There is also the intention to call forth in his disciples an effort at reflection by leaving to them the task of verbalizing what they had been able to grasp and what they believed concerning his own person and mission.⁵

Jesus’ basic preoccupation is to present himself to mankind as a mystery which no linguistic resource can fully disclose. For example, he offers adequate evidence of his own messiahship and divine sonship, yet he wants to let it be understood that he is Messiah and Son of God in a sense higher than the sense current among the Jews of his time. If he abstains from using the title of priest, the reason is that the priesthood he claims is not like the Jewish priesthood then in place.

What is it that sets Jesus apart from that priesthood? In the first place, the levitical priesthood is hereditary. Unlike John the Baptist—whose father, Zachariah, is a priest, and whose mother, Elizabeth, is a descendent of Aaron (Lk 1:5)—Jesus is not born into a priestly family. Joseph is of the house of David (Lk 1:27). He does not belong to the tribe of Levi but to that of Judah. Luke’s silence about Mary’s ancestors leads to the conclusion that these were not even distinguished enough to call for a mention.⁶

The primordial fact that Jesus had no priestly ancestry is significant in terms of God’s dispensation. We are being told that this dispensation excludes at the outset participation in the hereditary priesthood and membership in the priestly caste. It is all a sign that, henceforth, the priesthood will have nothing to do with ancestry nor constitute a privileged caste.

Besides, there is between Jesus and the Jewish priesthood a profound difference in mental attitude, a difference that becomes quite obvious as Jesus’ public