The Ordained Priesthood

by Eamonn Keane

Foreward by Matthew Habiger

Author's Preface

CHAPTER I: THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST 

1.The identity of the Ordained Priest 
2.The Two Priesthoods: A Difference in Essence 
3.Confusion of Roles 
4.Teach Transubstantiation and the Church's Moral Doctrine 

CHAPTER II: JESUS CONFERRED THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS ON THE 
APOSTLES 

1.At the Last Supper Jesus Instituted the Ministerial Priesthood 
2.The Early Church was Hierarchically Organised 

CHAPTER III: WOMEN ARE NOT CALLED TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD 

1.The Choice of the Twelve 
2.The Apostolic Community Remained Faithful to the Intention of 
the Lord 
3.The Equality of 'Male and Female' Does Not Mean the Suppression 
of Differences 
4.Sacramental Truth and Women Priests? 
5.Revealed Anthropology 
6.Christ: Bridegroom of the Church 
7.Marital Symbolism and the Eucharistic Sacrifice 
8.Adam: A Man or a Woman? 
9.'In Persona Christi' or 'In Persona Ecclesia'? - A Question of 
Priority 
10.Women Priests? - An Ancient Heresy 

CHAPTER IV: PETER HAS SPOKEN 

1.Development of Doctrine 
2.The Meaning and Nature of Authority 
3.Infallible Teaching and Authentic Teaching 
4.Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: The Church Has No Authority Whatsoever 
to Confer Priestly Ordination on Women 
5.Dissent from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 
6.The CDF Reply 
7.Who Determines what is the Teaching of the Ordinary Universal 
Magisterium: The Theologians or the Magisterium? 
8.The Ordination of Women: A Corruption of Doctrine 

CHAPTER V: THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN MUST BE BASED ON REVELATION 

1.Women's Particular Genius 
2.Radical Feminist Attack on Sources of Christian Revelation 
3.Radical Feminist Attack on the Ordained Priesthood 
4.The Unisex Utopia 

CHAPTER VI: CELIBACY - A PRICELESS TREASURE 

1.Objections to Celibacy 
2.Celibacy is Most Appropriate for the Ministerial Priesthood and 
it is Rooted in the Example of Christ and the Apostles 
3.The Church Resolutely Defends Celibacy 
4.Celibacy: A Sign of Contradiction 

CHAPTER VII: NEED FOR CATECHETICAL RENEWAL 

1.Are Catholic Schools Transmitting a Sound Knowledge of the 
Catholic Faith? 
2.The Indispensable Place of Doctrine in a Catholic Religious 
Education Program 
3.Parramatta Catholic Education Office: Corrupt Religious 
Education Materials 
4.Catholic Institute of Sydney: Attacking the Catechism of the 
Catholic Church 
5.Parramatta CEO Again 
6.Parramatta CEO: Transmitting Marxist Based Liberation Theology 
7.The Morality Section of the 1995 Parramatta CEO Support Units 
8.HSC Studies of Religion 

CHAPTER VIII: THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY - WHAT IS TRUTH? 

1.The Catholic University at the Service of Truth 
2.The Catholic University and Academic Freedom 
3.Has The ACU Repudiated the Church's Moral Doctrine? 
4.Intrinsically Evil Acts 
5.Fundamental Option and Deliberate Choices 
6.Can the Magisterium Teach Infallibly on Specific Moral Issues? 
7.Should Catholics Dissent from the Moral Doctrine of the Church? 
8.St Thomas Aquinas Did Nor Permit Abortion 
9.Jesus Knew Himself to be Divine 
10.The Corpse of Jesus Did Not Remain in the Tomb After His 
Resurrection 
11.Confusion and Error in First Year Undergraduate Course 

FOREWORD 

Every age has its confusions and rages. In these times radical 
feminism is the rage and spreads its confusion everywhere, 
including marriage, the family, parenting, human sexuality, 
religious life and the priesthood. 

Australia's Eamonn Keane provides the entire English-speaking 
world a service by examining the real issues surrounding the 
Ordained Priesthood. He brings all the pertinent literature into 
the discussion (Papal documents and addresses, the Catechism of 
the Catholic Church, Vatican II documents, Jean Galot S.J., Bishop 
Dunn's (Auckland, N.Z.) Priesthood, Dr John Haas, Hans Urs von 
Balthasar, etc. He lists the main arguments of feminists who want 
to change the priesthood and re-interpret Scripture and Tradition. 
He explains the nature of the ministerial priesthood and why Jesus 
called only men to this ministry: "I declare that the Church has 
no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and 
that this judgement is to be definitively held by all Christ's 
faithful" (Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4). 

Confusions, left unanswered, distract people from their true 
purposes. Instead of building up the People of God, they demolish 
it and render some structures of the Church helplessly 
ineffective. An authentic theology of women, based upon an 
anthropology revealed in the Mystery of Creation and Redemption, 
is always needed. The Church stands firmly against every form of 
discrimination which compromises the equal dignity of women and 
men. The complete equality of persons is accompanied by a 
marvellous complementarity. Radical feminism ignores this and 
pursues a dull amorphous unisex. 

When reading this manuscript I was at the Pontifical College 
Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, for the ordination of a former 
student to the transient deaconate. The ceremony and sacrament 
were profound, but the numbers too few. Radical feminism's 
confusions are claiming their toll. In the USA, despite its 
immense material wealth there are fewer seminarians than ever 
before (48,000 major seminarians after WWII; 6,000 today). 

When confusion abounds about the nature of the priesthood, when 
radical feminists use the priesthood as a political tool to 
advance their purposes, when radical "feminist theology" is 
brought into seminaries, college classrooms and RCIA classes, and 
when Women Ordination Conferences are allowed to happen with 
religious, priests and even some bishops in attendance, then we 
should not be surprised at the results: fewer young men aspirants 
to the priesthood. 

The Lord of the Harvest is always generous: there are as many 
vocations offered to young men today as in any previous age. But 
are we exercising good stewardship over them? Are we shaping an 
environment where vocations can flourish? Is God's plan for His 
priesthood respected or denigrated? Will the latest rage replace 
good theology of the priesthood? Will seminarians be subjected to 
militant feminists who will propagandise them mercilessly? 

The Ordained Priesthood is a very useful tool to help clear away 
the confusions created by radical feminists. Keane's book deepens 
our appreciation of the priesthood, and why God devised it as He 
did. The challenge now is for many Catholics to understand the 
issues, put our house back into order and begin a real spring 
house-cleaning! We know that God's truth ultimately prevails. What 
happens in the immediate future, however, or even during the 
intervening centuries, depends upon the practical wisdom of the 
Catholic people under the prudent leadership of their bishops. 
Like Keane's earlier book, Population and Development, this book 
addresses a widespread confusion. We are indebted to him. 

Fr. Matthew Habiger, OSB PhD 

President, Human Life International 

PREFACE 

Those Catholics who publicly criticise the Magisterium [1] for its 
teaching on a male-only ministerial priesthood, and for its 
refusal to lift the celibacy rule in the Latin Church, only serve 
to deflect attention away from the real problems facing the 
Catholic Church in Australia. In the ongoing debate over the 
growing shortage of ordained priests, dissenting theologians and 
others often suggest the problem could be solved if the Church 
would only ordain women. When it is pointed out that this cannot 
be a solution since the Magisterium has ruled it out, those same 
dissenting theologians often respond in one-line cliches such as 
"the final word has yet to be said on the question". 

There is a need in the Church for a comprehensive catechesis 
(education) on the origin, nature and dignity of the ministerial 
(ordained) priesthood. This catechesis needs to draw on the 
sources of Divine Revelation and it needs to be detailed and 
logical in its presentation. In general, Catholics in Australia 
have been heavily exposed to the views of dissenting theologians 
on the questions surrounding the ordained priesthood. In their 
public utterances, these dissenters often sound more like party 
political propagandists than theologians. To listen to the charges 
they level against the Magisterium, e.g. "the Vatican is bullying 
the theologians", one could be forgiven for forgetting that the 
ministerial priesthood belongs ultimately to the mystery of the 
Church itself and that it has its origin in the creative and 
redeeming wisdom of the Blessed Trinity. 

In this book I will endeavour to express my understanding of those 
doctrines pertaining to the ordained priesthood which are most 
under attack today. In particular, I will endeavour to show that 
in virtue of the consecration he receives by the gift of the Holy 
Spirit at Ordination, the priest is empowered to perform those 
sacramental acts through which Christ makes present and effective 
his own life-giving mission in the Church. The consecration 
effected by the Sacrament of Holy Orders affects the priest both 
in what he is and in what he does. It configures him to Christ the 
Head, Shepherd and Bridegroom of the Church in such a way that the 
ordained priest is able to continue Christ's prayer, preaching, 
sacrifice and saving action in the Church. It is in relation to 
the doctrine which expresses these realities that I will try to 
show why the ordination of women is impossible. Coupled with this, 
I will spend one full chapter outlining the reasons why celibacy 
is most appropriate to the ordained priesthood. 

In presenting the doctrine of the Church on the ministerial 
priesthood, I will be doing so against the backdrop of some common 
expressions of dissent from the Church's teaching with which many 
Catholics are now familiar. While much of what I have to say in 
the pages that follow is drawn from Magisterial documents of the 
Church, I make no claim however to speak with any particular 
authority on Church doctrine. It is the Pope alone, and the 
Bishops in communion with him, who can claim such authority. 

A good indicator of the overall state of the Catholic Church in 
Australia is the quality of Religious Education and Theology 
courses in its schools and tertiary institutions. If in such 
courses the doctrine of the Church is being undermined, then it 
should not surprise anyone to find that the decline in vocations 
to the priesthood is paralleled by falling Mass attendances and by 
an increase in the alienation of youth from the practice of the 
faith. Consequently, chapters 7 and 8 of this book are given over 
to the education question. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

1.The word 'Magisterium' refers to the office of teaching 
inscribed in the Church by Christ. This office is exercised by the 
Pope and the Bishops in communion with him when they act as 
teachers and preachers of the truths of faith and morals. 

CHAPTER I

1.THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST 
2.THE TWO PRIESTHOODS: A DIFFERENCE IN ESSENCE 
3.CONFUSION OF ROLES 
4.TEACH TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE CHURCH'S MORAL 

THE IDENTITY OF THE ORDAINED PRIEST

The Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is "the source and summit of 
the Christian life". {1} At the Last Supper Christ changed bread 
and wine into his Body and Blood and gave it to his Apostles to 
eat and drink. Then he said to them: "Do this as a memorial of me" 
(Lk 22:19). The whole work that Jesus had come to do was summed up 
in this gift of himself to his disciples. This is why he wanted 
them to continue to do what he had just done as a memorial of him. 
By saying that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is a 
'memorial' of Jesus we mean that through it Our Lord becomes 
present in the fullness of his being and life in such a way as to 
make his sacrifice on the Cross present to us. It does not repeat 
what happened on Calvary but simply prolongs it down through the 
years. This indeed is "the great mystery of faith". 

The Catholic Church in Australia is now characterised by an ageing 
priesthood and falling seminary enrolments. If this trend 
continues it will lead to a considerable decline in the number of 
clergy available for parish and other work. This should be a 
matter of concern to all Catholics for it is only validly ordained 
priests who can preside over the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the 
Mass. Speaking of this, the Second Vatican Council said: "Though 
everyone can baptise the faithful, the priest alone can complete 
the building up of the Body in the Eucharistic Sacrifice". {2} The 
Australian trend of falling vocations is not however a universal 
phenomenon. The publication of the Church's annual statistics for 
1994 shows that after a sharp decrease in the period between 1970 
and 1974, vocations since then have been steadily increasing. In 
1994, the number of major seminarians worldwide was 105,075, up 
74.7% as compared with 1975, and 44.1% compared with 1970. In 
Africa during this period, the number of major seminarians grew by 
393.5%. In Central America the increase since 1975 has been 
165.1%. In South America vocations are up 253.3% since 1970. In 
South East Asia the increase since 1974 has been 152.5% and 
vocations have also increased in the Middle East. While in Europe 
vocations have not yet regained their 1970 levels, they have 
nevertheless increased by 23.4% in the period from 1978-1994. The 
only parts of the world where the trend of the early 70's has not 
been reversed is North America and Oceania. {3} 

In 1991, Pope John Paul II set up a commission charged with 
establishing a system that would ensure a better global 
distribution of priests. Archbishop Cresenzio Sepe, Secretary for 
the Congregation for Clergy, has recently reported that the 
commission has completed a survey of the world's bishops and that 
it is now ready to start "matchmaking". {4} Hopefully any 
missionary priests that arrive in Australia will receive a warm 
welcome from all sectors of the Church here. The causes of the 
vocations drought are no doubt many and complex. Some of these are 
I believe: 

•a lack of awareness of the true identity of the ordained priest; 

•a blurring of the distinction between the hierarchical priesthood 
and the common priesthood of all the baptised; 

•loss of both the sense of God and of sin; 

•the scandal of public dissent from the teaching of the 
Magisterium; 

•general decline in Church attendance; 

•a fall in the birth-rate amongst Catholics partly accounted for 
by a high rate of contraceptive use; 

•increased rates of family breakdown; 

•liturgical abuses and a decline in faith in the Real Presence of 
Jesus in the Eucharist; 

•the adoption of a secularist view of life by a large number of 
Catholics; 

•several decades of defective catechesis/religious education; 

•diminished status of clergy in society; 

•an advanced materialism and exaggerated individualism in Western 
society. 

At a Vatican Conference on the ministerial priesthood held during 
October 1995, participants were unanimous in their agreement that 
lost awareness of the particular identity of the ordained priest 
was the major factor contributing to the problems facing the 
priesthood today. Stressing the need to reaffirm the true identity 
of the ordained priest, Cardinal Ratzinger in addressing the 
Conference said: "The Catholic Church must rediscover the sacred 
character of the priesthood and avoid tendencies to see it just as 
a functional office within the Church". He added that "one symptom 
of the problem" of priestly identity was the "growing tendency to 
avoid using the expressions 'priest' or 'priesthood' which carry a 
sacred connotation, and substitute them with the neutral, 
functional 'minister' which in Catholic theology was never given 
much importance". {5} 

As presented by the New Testament and Church Tradition, the 
ordained priesthood in the Catholic Church "is essentially the 
extension and realisation of the priesthood of Christ himself". 
{6} Consequently, it is "impossible to understand the essence and 
nature" of the ordained priesthood "except in relation to Christ". 
{7} The central mystery of Christianity, from which all the other 
mysteries and articles of faith flow, is the Blessed Trinity. 
Man's absolute dependence on God imposes on him the obligation to 
glorify God. In the Divine plan, however, the glory God desires 
can only be rendered to him by the God-Man who renders it in as 
much as he is the Mediator between God and Man. Now to be a 
mediator between God and man is to discharge the role of priest. 
Describing the priestly nature in this perspective, Fr Rom Josko 
said: 

In a supernatural religion the priest is chosen by God to offer 
sacrifice and oblation to him in the name of the people and to 
communicate God's gifts of grace and pardon to mankind. This is 
the teaching of Sacred Scripture: "The purpose for which every 
high priest is chosen from among men and made a representative of 
men in their dealings with God is to offer gifts and sacrifices in 
expiation of their sins" (Heb. 5:1). The special dignity of the 
priesthood resides in this mediation. The dignity bestowed by this 
office of mediation is such that not even Christ, in his humanity, 
assumed it for himself: "His vocation comes from God, as Aoron's 
did: nobody can take to himself such a privilege as this. So it is 
with Christ. He did not raise himself to the dignity of the high 
priesthood: it was God that raised him to it, Thou art my Son, I 
have begotten you this day" (Heb 5:4-5). As such, the priesthood 
is, therefore, a gift bestowed upon Christ's humanity by the 
Father, and the prerogative of Christ's priesthood is to offer to 
the Blessed Trinity, in the name of mankind and of all creation, a 
homage acceptable to God. Because of the Hypostatic Union, Christ, 
unlike all other priests, received no external anointing as a 
priest. At the moment of the Incarnation, the Word assumed a human 
nature and in assuming it consecrated it, rendered it an apt 
instrument for Itself and was designated, by the Father, the sole 
and eternal Mediator between God and man: "You are a priest 
forever according to the order of Melchizidech" (Heb 5: 6). Christ 
is therefore the eternal High Priest.{8} 

Speaking of Christ's unique priesthood, and of how the ordained 
priesthood in the Church is related to it, Pope John Paul II in 
his Holy Thursday Letter to Priests for 1996 said: 

"Let us consider our call, brethren" (cf. 1 Cor 1:26). The 
priesthood is a call, a particular vocation: "one does not take 
this honour upon himself, but he is called by God" (Heb 5:4). The 
Letter to the Hebrews harks back to the priesthood of the Old 
Testament in order to lead us to an understanding of the mystery 
of Christ the Priest: "Christ did not exalt himself to be made a 
high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him: ...You are 
a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek" (5:5-6). 
Christ, the Son of one being with the Father, has been made priest 
of the New Covenant according to the order of Melchizedek: 
therefore he too was called to the priesthood. It is the Father 
who "calls his own Son, whom he has begotten by an act of eternal 
love, "to come into the world" (cf. Heb 10:5) and to become man. 
He wills that his only-begotten Son, by taking flesh, should 
become "a priest for ever": the one priest of the new eternal 
Covenant...Thus the mystery of the priesthood has its beginning in 
the Trinity and is, at the same time, a consequence of the 
Incarnation...The priesthood of the New Covenant, to which we are 
called in the Church, is thus a share in the unique priesthood of 
Christ".{9} 

Since the ordained priesthood "depends entirely on Christ and His 
unique priesthood", then the exercise of the authority it bestows 
must "be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made 
himself the servant of all". {10} The ordained priesthood in the 
Catholic Church is conferred through the Sacrament of Holy Orders 
which communicates a "sacred power" which "is none other than that 
of Christ himself." {11} It is a gift to the Church which was 
instituted by Christ who conferred it on the Apostles in order to 
continue his own salvific mission and it remains in the Church 
through the Bishops and their successors. {12} Through the 
Sacrament of Holy Orders which is conferred by the imposition of 
hands and the consecratory prayer of the Bishop, a specific 
"ontological bond which unites the priest to Christ, High Priest 
and Good Shepherd" is established. {13} Josef Pieper says that a 
priest "is a consecrated person, specifically ordained for the 
celebration of the sacramental mysteries". {14} This consecration, 
which is accomplished "by God through the ministry of the bishop", 
is irrevocable and final since "it confers an indelible spiritual 
character". {15} Thus consecrated, the ordained priest "receives a 
new and essential inner quality - the consecration transforms him 
into a persona sacra". {16} Through the anointing of the Holy 
Spirit which they receive at ordination, priests "are signed with 
a special character" and so are configured to Christ the priest in 
such a way that they "are able to act in the person of Christ the 
Head". {17} By this "sacred power that he has", the ordained 
priest, "forms and rules the priestly people; in the person of 
Christ he effects the eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God 
in the name of all the people". {18} Speaking of how the ordained 
priest is able to act in the person of Christ, Dr John M. Haas 
said: 

By virtue of God's grace and the indelible character the priest 
now acts, as St Paul puts it, in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10). 
Christ's life and ministry are now his life and ministry. As he 
surrenders his life to Christ's the Lord's promise is fulfilled in 
him: "It will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father 
speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). The priest does not stand 
between God and man, but rather mediates Christ immediately to the 
faithful. The sacramental powers that he has are Christ's, not 
his. That is why Saint Thomas refers to them as instrumental 
rather than personal powers. When the priest administers the 
sacraments, Christ works in and through him.{19} 

Being a sacramental representation of Christ, the ordained priest 
"participates ontologically in the priesthood of Christ; he is 
truly consecrated, a 'man of the sacred,' designated like Christ 
to the worship that ascends to the Father and to the evangelising 
mission by which he spreads and distributes sacred realities - the 
truth, the grace of God - to his brothers and sisters. This is the 
priest's true identity; this is the essential requirement of the 
priestly ministry in today's world too". {20} This means that 
through the ministry of the ordained priest, "it is Christ himself 
who is present to his Church as Head of His Body, Shepherd of his 
flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth". 
{21} The priest "finds the full truth of his identity in being a 
derivation, a specific participation in and continuation of Christ 
himself, the one high priest of the new and eternal covenant. The 
priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the priest". 
{22} Consequently, through the ordained ministry of the bishops 
and the priests, "the presence of Christ as head of the Church is 
made visible in the midst of the community of believers" {23} 

As "ministers of sacred things", priests are "first and foremost 
ministers of the sacrifice of the Mass". {24} This role is 
"utterly irreplaceable, because without the priest there can be no 
eucharistic offering". {25} In referring to this central aspect of 
the priest's identity, the Second Vatican Council said: "It is in 
the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic Assembly of the 
faithful that they [priests] exercise in a supreme degree their 
sacred functions; there, acting in the person of Christ and 
proclaiming his mystery they unite the votive offerings of the 
faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the 
sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the 
coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, 
that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless 
victim to the Father". {26} Commenting further on this point, Pope 
John Paul II said: "In the Eucharist the presbyter [priest] 
reaches the high point of his ministry when he pronounces Jesus' 
words: 'This is my body...This is the cup of my blood...' These 
words concretize the greatest exercise of that power which enables 
a priest to make present the sacrifice of Christ. Then the 
community is truly built up and developed...Today, it is necessary 
to rediscover the central importance of this celebration in the 
Christian life and, thus, in the apostolate". {27} 

A crisis of priestly identity will arise whenever confusion is 
spread about the priesthood of Christ himself. For example, Fr 
Brian Byron's publicly expressed view that the priesthood of 
Christ is metaphorical rather than literal may lend itself to the 
spreading of such confusion. Fr Byron says: 

At first sight it may seem obvious that Jesus was literally a 
priest, for it is clearly stated in the Letter to the Hebrews that 
Jesus is a priest, indeed, a high priest (2:17; 3:1; 4:14). He is 
given the title of high priest by God...Furthermore, the assertion 
of Jesus' priesthood is repeated many times by the fathers of the 
church, by St Thomas Aquinas...by popes and councils, in the 
liturgy...Nonetheless, the description of Jesus as a priest by the 
author of Hebrews is metaphorical, not literal, and as all other 
assertions are based on Hebrews, they too must be understood 
metaphorically.{28} 

In noting that it is the author of Hebrews alone who in the New 
Testament explicitly designates Jesus as priest, Fr Byron says: 
"In doing this the author was brilliantly original. He had a 
poetic mind. He was using allegory, or extended typology, which 
fits the category of metaphor. This is not to deny divine 
inspiration". {29} Then, in what appears to me as a very confusing 
statement, Fr Byron says: 

The literal acceptance of Jesus' priesthood has forced theologians 
to an explanation of ordained ministers as being priests by 
participation in the unique priesthood of Christ whereas the 
correct understanding, in my opinion, is that they, literal 
priests, are thereby sacraments of Christ interpreted precisely as 
'priest'. The literal interpretation has also made the 'essential' 
distinction between ordained priesthood and the general priesthood 
of Christians (asserted in the Second Vatican Council's 
Constitution on the Church, no. 10) difficult to define.{30} 

The main theme of the Letter to the Hebrews is the priesthood of 
Christ (cf. Heb 10: 5-10). It teaches that his priesthood is 
linked to the mystery of the Incarnation, that it is a unique 
priesthood and consequently that the truth regarding the 
priesthood is to be found only in Christ. {31} The Gospel and the 
other New Testament writings present Christ as Teacher, Prophet, 
King and Priest. The purpose of his teaching is to proclaim God's 
kingdom (Lk 9: 11). In the words and actions of Christ, the words 
and mission of the Old Testament prophets are fulfilled (cf. Lk 
4:15; 13:32-33). Before Pilate, Jesus reveals the kingly aspect of 
his power (cf. Mt 27:11; 28:18-20). Finally, of his own free will, 
Christ, the Good Shepherd, "lays down his life for his sheep" (Jn 
10: 11). The Gospel sees in this spontaneous sacrifice of Christ 
the sacrifice of the Priest who sheds his own blood for the 
expiation of sins (cf. Mk 14:24; Rom 5:6; Eph 1:7; 2:3; 1 Jn 2:2; 
Gal 1:4; Eph 5:20-25). {32} As was noted earlier, the New 
Testament and Church Tradition presents the ordained priesthood as 
an extension and realisation of this unique priesthood of Christ 
himself. In view of this, I fear that in asserting that Jesus' 
priesthood was metaphorical rather than literal, Fr Byron is 
running the risk of removing the foundations of the Catholic 
Church's doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, I 
detect something of a contradiction in his proposition. If, as Fr 
Byron asserts, the priesthood of Jesus is merely metaphorical 
rather than literal, and if Pope John Paul II is correct (as 
indeed he is) in teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders 
bestows on the ordained priest an "ontological" participation in 
the unique priesthood of Christ, then how can Fr Byron consider 
the ordained priesthood to be a literal priesthood when it 
participates "ontologically" in a priesthood of Christ which is 
only "metaphorical"? 

The identity of the ordained priest is also undermined when doubt 
is cast on the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on the Cross 
which is sacramentally made present in every Mass. Consistent with 
his belief that Christ is not "literally" a priest, Fr Byron also 
argues that Christ's death on Calvary is not literally a 
sacrifice. He says: "Calvary is literally not a sacrifice: 
historically in human terms it was an execution; transcendentally 
it surpassed all previously existing human categories, including 
sacrifice. When we use human terms to describe it we use them 
metaphorically which acknowledges that they essentially fall short 
of the truth. So when we describe Calvary as a 'sacrifice' we are 
speaking metaphorically". {33} 

Taking Fr Byron's ideas to their logical conclusion, it could be 
said that "transcendentally" all aspects of the Paschal Mystery 
surpass "all previously existing categories". But does this mean 
however that we cannot make factual or "literal" statements about 
the historical and concrete events which lie at the basis of the 
saving mysteries? For example, while the Resurrection of Jesus is 
both a transcendent {34} and historical reality which "surpasses 
all previously existing categories", does this mean that when we 
speak of the Lord's remains being lifted up in his Resurrection we 
are thereby referring to something that is merely "metaphorical" 
rather than "literal" and consequently must thereby "fall short of 
the truth"? Obviously not! Reality becomes intelligible through 
words. Man speaks so that through naming things what is real may 
become intelligible. {35} Consequently, if Fr Byron's proposition 
were true, we would have no alternative but to conclude that 
doctrinal statements do not accurately convey realities expressed 
in the divinely revealed mysteries. 

Fr Byron says he has difficulty accepting "the particular theology 
of eucharist sacrifice proposed by the Vatican" which is that in 
the Eucharist the Church "makes present the sacrifice of Calvary". 
{36} Explaining how he thinks the word "sacrifice" should apply to 
the Mass, Fr Byron says: "When it comes to explaining how the name 
'sacrifice' is applied to the Mass, my argument is that the Mass 
is called a sacrifice because of its own essence and not because 
of its relationship with Calvary. In fact interpretative 
descriptive meaning flows from the symbol to the reality, from the 
type to the anti-type, from the Mass to Calvary, not the other way 
around. The only positive way that Calvary can be said to be 
present in the Mass, as far as I can see, is by real-
symbolisation". {37} 

In what he has said above, I believe that Fr Byron has got things 
back to front. Jesus' whole life was oriented toward the 
redemption of the human race through his sacrificial death on 
Calvary. In recounting the redemptive action of Christ, the New 
Testament does so in terms of its sacrificial nature. This is 
brought out in the words of Jesus himself when at the Last Supper 
he speaks of his blood "to be poured out on behalf of many for the 
forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28). Speaking of how Christ, of his 
own free will, offered himself in sacrifice on Calvary and of how 
this is sacramentally made present in the Mass, Pope Pius XII 
said: "The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty 
commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true 
and proper act of sacrifice, whereby the High Priest by an 
unbloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable Victim to the 
Eternal Father, as He did upon the Cross". {38} 

In the Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul VI said: "We believe 
that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of 
Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of 
Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members 
of His Mystical Body, is the Sacrifice of Calvary rendered 
sacramentally present on our altars". Pope John Paul II said: "The 
Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of 
the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant, as we 
believe and as the Eastern Churches clearly profess: 'Today's 
sacrifice...is like that offered once by the Only-begotten 
Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is 
one and the same sacrifice'. Accordingly, precisely by making this 
single sacrifice of our salvation present, man and the world are 
restored to God through the paschal newness of Redemption". {39} 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Mass is called 
a Holy Sacrifice "because it makes present the one sacrifice of 
Christ". {40} It adds that in the Eucharist, Christ "gives us the 
very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood 
which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". {41} 
Consequently, the Eucharist is a sacrifice "because it re-presents 
(makes present) the sacrifice of the cross". {42} 

THE TWO PRIESTHOODS: A DIFFERENCE IN ESSENCE

Christ the Lord, the High priest of the new and everlasting 
covenant, "wished to associate with His perfect priesthood and to 
form in its likeness the people He had bought with His own blood 
(cf. Heb 7:20-22, 26-28; 10:14, 21). He therefore granted His 
Church a share in His priesthood, which consists of the common 
priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical 
priesthood". {43} Through Baptism all the faithful share in the 
priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common 
priesthood of the faithful". Based on this common priesthood and 
ordered to its service, "there exists another participation in the 
mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy 
Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person 
of Christ the Head in the midst of the community". {44} 

The Second Vatican Council stressed that the common priesthood of 
all the faithful and the ministerial priesthood "differ in essence 
and not only in degree". {45} In reference to the distinction 
between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial 
priesthood, Jean Galot S.J. says: "There is a difference as to the 
mission assigned to the two priesthoods in the Church. The Twelve 
who receive the ministerial priesthood are entrusted with a 
pastoral mission. They are given an authority which empowers them 
to proclaim the gospel, celebrate the Eucharist, forgive sins, and 
lead the community" {.46} Just as the Sacrament of Baptism sets 
all the faithful apart from those who are not baptised, so does 
the Sacrament of Holy Orders set the ordained priest apart from 
the rest of the faithful. Speaking of this, Pope Pius XII said: 

In the same way, actually, that Baptism is the distinctive mark of 
all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who 
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently 
are not members of Christ, the Sacrament of Holy Orders sets the 
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received 
this consecration. For they alone, in answer to an inward 
supernatural call have entered the august ministry, where they are 
assigned to service in the sanctuary and become as it were, the 
instruments God uses to communicate supernatural life from on high 
to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Add to this...the fact that 
they alone have been marked with the indelible sign 'conforming' 
them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been 
consecrated 'in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, 
whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name 
of Our Lord Jesus Christ'. Let all then who would live in Christ, 
flock to their priests. By them they will be supplied with the 
comforts and food of the spiritual life. From them they will 
procure the medicine of salvation assuring their cure and happy 
recovery from the fatal sickness of their sins. The priest, 
finally, will bless their homes, consecrate their families and 
help them, as they breathe their last, across the threshold to 
eternal happiness.{47} 

The ordained priesthood is planted in the Church by God to 
guarantee "that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments" 
and to serve the common priesthood of all the faithful by way of 
teaching and governance. {48} Regarding this last mentioned aspect 
of the priest's identity, Pope John Paul II said: 

The priest is first of all a minister of the word of God. He is 
consecrated and sent forth to proclaim the good news of the 
kingdom to all, calling every person to the obedience of faith and 
leading believers to an ever increasing knowledge of the communion 
in the mystery of God, as revealed and communicated to us in 
Christ...In order that he himself may possess and give to the 
faithful the guarantee that he is transmitting the Gospel in its 
fullness, the priest is called to develop a special sensitivity, 
love and docility to the living tradition of the Church and to her 
Magisterium.{49} 

CONFUSION OF ROLES

Two of the many great achievements of the Second Vatican Council 
were its reform of the liturgy and the new focus it brought to 
bear on the mission of the laity in the Church and in the world. 
The Council said that the laity have the special vocation "to seek 
the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing 
them according to God's will". {50} Therefore, the laity's role in 
the Church is not to be mere recipients of doctrine and the grace 
of the sacraments, but also to serve as "active and responsible 
agents of the Church's mission to evangelise and sanctify the 
world". {51} Thus it falls especially to the laity to permeate 
family life, the world of work, politics, education, science, 
economics - indeed the whole of culture itself - with the light of 
the Gospel. Referring to this task of the laity, Pope John Paul II 
in speaking to a group of Bishops from the United States said: 

Perhaps, as the Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici points 
out, more attention should be given in catechesis and preaching to 
the 'deep involvement and the full participation of the lay 
faithful in the affairs of the earth, the world and the human 
community' (n. 15), so that the laity may better understand that 
this is their primary apostolate in the Church. They need your 
constant encouragement. They expect their Bishops to strengthen 
them in holiness and guide them with authentic teaching, while at 
the same time leaving them room for initiative and freedom of 
action in the world.{52} 

While stressing that the primary focus of the mission of the laity 
is to imbue the social order with Gospel values, Vatican II 
however also encouraged the laity to take up new ministries in the 
Church itself. It stated that "the laity have an active part to 
play in the activity of the Church". {53} In regard to the 
liturgy, it stressed that texts and rites should be drawn up "so 
as to express more clearly the holy things they signify," and in 
such a way that "the Christian people, as far as possible, should 
be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, 
actively, and as a community". {54} Speaking of the Council's 
wisdom in undertaking the reform of the liturgy, Pope John Paul II 
said: 

The Council's directives to make the liturgy ever more meaningful 
and effective were truly wise. It made the rites correspond to 
their doctrinal meaning, imbuing the proclamation of God's word 
with renewed vigour, encouraging a more attractive participation 
by the faithful and promoting these different forms of ministry 
which, while expressing the richness and charisms and ecclesial 
services, eloquently show how the liturgy is at the same time an 
action of Christ and of the Church. Moreover, the impetus given to 
adapting the rites to the various languages and cultures, so that 
in the liturgy too the Church could give complete expression to 
her universal character, was decisive. With these innovations the 
Church did not cut herself off from her tradition, but on the 
contrary, fully interpreted its riches and its demands.{55} 

Christian vocation, whatever shape it takes, is "a gift whose 
purpose is to build up the Church and to increase the kingdom of 
God in the world". {56} This being the case, it is necessary for 
the good of the whole Church, and indeed the whole world, to keep 
the laity focused on their own vocation because "the more the 
laity's own sense of vocation is deepened, the more what is proper 
to the priest stands out". {57} If instead, the laity attempt to 
take over from the priest roles that are best left to him, then it 
can easily happen that we end up "clericalising" the lay vocation. 
{58} Consequently, when introducing new ministries, it is 
important that they be accompanied by a proper catechesis lest 
they further erode awareness of the true role of the ordained 
priest. This is particularly true of ministries centred on the 
liturgy. In a book he had published before receiving his episcopal 
appointment, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said: 

Liturgical renewal, with its greater lay participation, has 
further obscured the traditional understanding of the priest's 
uniqueness...The present proliferation of ministers within the 
Church can make priestly ordination seem somewhat anomalous 
because so many ministers who are not ordained are now also 
involved in the liturgy. And increasingly today pastoral ministers 
are being installed in public ceremonies very analogous to 
ordination. In the midst of all this, the position of the 
traditional priest is being queried more and more.{59} 

Of particular concern is the enthusiasm with which the notion of 
"lay pastors" servicing "priestless parishes" is being promoted by 
various Church agencies. This enthusiasm however is not shared by 
Pope John Paul II who in speaking to a group of Canadian Bishops 
about the priest shortage said: 

In meeting this challenge, certain fundamental principles should 
always guide your pastoral response. The parish is a community of 
the baptised who express and confirm their identity through the 
celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice...This requires the 
presence of an ordained priest whose first privilege and 
irreplaceable responsibility is to offer the Eucharist in persona 
Christi...Great care must be taken to ensure that no 
misunderstanding arises about the nature of the Eucharist and its 
essential link with the ordained priesthood. When a community is 
deprived of the priest who acts publicly in the name of 
Christ...this regrettable situation calls for an emergency 
response. Sunday celebrations should continue, and lay persons who 
lead their brothers and sisters in prayer are exercising in a 
commendable way the common priesthood of all the faithful, based 
on the grace of Baptism. It would be a serious mistake, however, 
to accept this as a normal way of involving religious and lay men 
and women in the liturgy. Such provisions should be regarded as 
only temporary, while the community is 'in expectation of a 
priest'....Your assiduous oversight is required so that all will 
see 'the substantial character of these celebrations, which should 
not be regarded as the optimal solution to new difficulties'...On 
the contrary, the sacramental incompleteness of these celebrations 
should lead the whole community to pray more fervently that the 
Lord will send labourers into his harvest...{60} 

This warning by Pope John Paul II not to allow the faithful to 
become conditioned to accepting as normal Sunday liturgies other 
than the Mass is particularly relevant to Australia. In a letter 
dated 21st March, 1996, Archbishop Little of Melbourne wrote to 
priests of the Archdiocese in order to correct directions sent out 
without his prior approval from the diocesan Office of Worship. 
Headed Some Principles of Alternative Sunday Worship, the document 
from the Office of Worship emphasised the "local community" as the 
main focal point for the Church's activity. It stated that "where 
viable the local community should continue, both liturgically and 
pastorally without a priest" and added that "the worship leader 
should come from within the local community". The document 
strongly suggested that the faithful should prefer a liturgy of 
the Word in their own parishes on a Sunday if there was no priest 
available to travelling to a neighbouring parish for Mass. It 
said: "It is preferable to gather on a Sunday in your own 
community rather than travel to another parish, i.e., the priority 
is to gather as a local assembly on a Sunday". 

In his observations on the document from the Office of Worship, 
Archbishop Little first faulted it for not making clear in its 
discussion of the "Means of Christ's presence in the Church" that 
Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist "is a presence par 
excellence". Archbishop Little also drew attention to the 
misleading nature of the statement in the document which spoke of 
"forms of worship alternative to Eucharist". The Archbishop 
pointed out to his priests that "there can be no alternative to 
the Eucharist" and he stated that "the Church only strongly 
recommends (rather than obliges) the faithful to other forms of 
worship if the Eucharist is unavailable". In highlighting the 
erroneous views contained in the Office of Worship document, 
Archbishop Little referred several times to the to the Code of 
Cannon Law. He said: 

The fundamental flaw in the document is that the parish, rather 
than the diocese, is presented as the basic unit. Because of this, 
there is no mention of the Bishop. While the parish priest is 
obliged to see that the Word of God is preached and that the 
Blessed Eucharist is the centre of the parish (Canon 528) and that 
the solemn celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays is especially 
entrusted to him (Canon 530), the parish priest is not obliged to 
preach the Word of God and celebrate the Eucharist personally on 
all occasions. Other priests can assist or replace him on 
occasions (Canons 539-541, 545-550). The parishioners are obliged 
to assist at Mass on Sundays, but they are not obliged to do so in 
their parish church or with the parish community. They have the 
freedom to fulfil their obligation wherever Mass is celebrated in 
any Catholic rite (i.e. even outside the Latin Rite), on Sunday or 
the previous evening (Canons 1247-1248). If it is impossible to 
assist at Mass because no priest is available or for any other 
grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended (but not 
obliged) to take part in a liturgy of the word or to pray 
privately or with others (Canon 1248).

Archbishop Little concluded his letter to his priests by drawing 
their attention to two accompanying documents: Directory for 
Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (Vatican 
Congregation for Divine Worship) and a Pastoral Letter of the 
Kansas Bishops in 1995. The Directory for Sunday Celebrations in 
the Absence of a Priest includes the following direction: 
"Whenever and wherever Mass cannot be celebrated on Sunday, the 
first thing to be ascertained is whether the faithful can go to a 
church in a place nearby to paricipate there in the eucharistic 
mystery..." (n. 18). In their statement the Bishops of Kansas 
said: "We, the Bishops of Kansas, have come to judge that holy 
communion regularly received outside of Mass is a short-term 
solution that has all the makings of becoming a long-term problem. 
It has implications that are disturbing: 

•A blurring of the difference between the celebration of the 
eucharist and the reception of communion. 

•A blurring of the distinction between a priest and a deacon or a 
non-ordained minister presiding over a communion service. 

•A blurring of the relationship between pastoral and sacramental 
ministry. 

•A blurring of the connection between the eucharist and the works 
of charity and justice. 

•A bluring of the need for priests and therefore a blurring of the 
continual need for vocations. 

•A blurring of the linkage between the local church and the 
diocesan and universal church that is embodied in the person of 
the parish priest". 

Having thus outlined the implications of conditioning the faithful 
to accepting communion services as a long-term alternative to the 
Mass, the Kansas Bishops went on to add: "These implications give 
us pause in approving the distribution of holy communion outside 
of Mass on Sundays. Such practice could well contribute to the 
erosion of our many-sided belief in the eucharist. It is for this 
reason that we restrict such services to emergencies only. And by 
that we mean unforseen circumstances when a priest is not 
available". {61} 

Diocesan officials in Rockhampton appear to have gone even further 
in their attempts to undermine the centrality of the Sunday Mass 
in the lives of Catholics than has Melbourne's Office of Worship. 
In the October 1993 edition of the Continuing Education Newsletter 
of the Rockhampton Diocese, Dr Peter Young who is the Director of 
Continuing Religious Education in the Diocese said: 

What we all have to learn - and very quickly - is that the Mass 
'the apex of communal celebration', is not the only way to ensure 
the presence of Christ in our community. Every time 'two or three 
gather in His Name' there is Christ really present amongst us; we 
have 'eucharist'. When we gather to 'break bread' we have THE 
EUCHARIST...Not being able to go to Mass does Not absolve us from 
the obligation of 'keeping holy the Sabbath'. Whatever the form of 
the weekly community celebration might be, we are obliged in 
conscience to participate. But here again we have to remember that 
while the celebration of the Eucharist (Mass) is the 'source and 
summit of all preaching of the Gospel' there are other ways to 
celebrate, there are other ways of praying together, other ways to 
'make eucharist'. As is clear from the letter of Archbishop Little 
cited earlier, Dr Young is out of order in stating that Catholics 
are "obliged in conscience" to participate in Sunday liturgies 
other than the Mass. Writing in the July 1993 edition of the 
Rockhampton diocesan monthly The Review, Dr Young said: 

Until recently, a Catholic understanding of the Sacraments was 
that there were SEVEN, and that they were 'signs instituted by 
Christ to give grace' - despite the fact that there is no evidence 
in Sacred Scripture that Jesus actually instructed his followers 
to perform some of these rituals...The Sacraments - like the 
liturgical life of the People of God (Church) - must meet today's 
needs in today's (Australian) society. What the Apostles did, or 
the Medieval Church did is 'interesting' but not sacrosanct. If 
further changes to the Sacraments are needed - and there have 
already been many - then it is essential that we explore in 
greater depth WHAT the Sacraments ARE, what is their PURPOSE, and 
are the NEEDS of the People of God being met by the current 
Sacramental formulas.

Since writing the article from which the above quotation is taken, 
Dr Young has been appointed editor of the The Review. In its March 
1996 edition it carried a full-page reprint from the US National 
Catholic Reporter of 21 April 1995. In this article we read: 

According to the old Baltimore Catechism 'a sacrament is an 
outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace'. The Church has 
had to perform logical gymnastics to accommodate its chosen seven 
sacraments to this tidy definition. One might conclude that the 
shortage of priests is God's way of telling the Vatican it is on 
the wrong track. In the early Church the master of the house 
blessed the bread, broke it and distributed it, though it is not 
certain that the meal thus celebrated was the sacramental 
Eucharist. The practice of the early Church with respect to what 
we call the Mass varied widely until officially made uniform a 
considerable time after Christ...It's not clear that anyone in 
particular was commissioned to preside over the Eucharist in the 
very beginning...The words of transubstantiation are ultimately 
effective, however, only if they create a true sense of 
community...The day will come, and is probably already here in so-
called base communities, when a priest is rarely seen - when the 
laity may celebrate eucharistic ceremonies at home in a true 
family setting. The failure of centrally organised religious 
ceremonies is that they have lost their relevance to the real 
world...".

If the theology espoused by Dr Young and his fellow travellers in 
the Melbourne Office of Worship is allowed to infect the general 
body of the Catholic faithful in Australia, then the Church in 
this country will be in danger of being reduced to the status of a 
sect. 

Alongside the tendency to clericalise the laity is the 
corresponding danger of "laicising" the ordained priesthood. {62} 
Bishop David Konstant alluded to this when in speaking of the need 
to promote a greater awareness of the role of the ordained priest 
he said: "Priests are often expected to do a great many things 
outside their real function". {63} When the ordained priest takes 
on roles unrelated to his true identity, a blurring of the 
distinction between the two priesthoods occurs. The likelihood of 
a confusion of roles is increased when priests publicly adopt and 
promote partisan political positions on questions in which there 
exists a legitimate plurality of opinion amongst the faithful. 
Consequently, "the priest, as a servant of the universal Church, 
cannot tie himself to any historical contingency, and therefore 
must be above any political party". {64} Also, in imitation of 
Christ (cf. Jn 6:15), the priest "ought to refrain from actively 
engaging himself in politics, as it often happens, in order to be 
a central point of spiritual fraternity". {65} Instead, the priest 
must act to form the laity in the social doctrine of the Church in 
order that they be able to act with correctly formed consciences 
in temporal affairs. {66} Speaking of the consequences of the 
secularisation of the priestly life, Pope John Paul II said: 

It is easy to allow oneself to be guided by appearances and to 
succumb to a fundamental illusion concerning what is essential. 
Those who call for the secularisation of the priestly life and 
applaud its various manifestations will undoubtedly abandon us if 
we succumb to temptation. We shall then cease to be needed and 
wanted...In practice, the only priest whom people will always feel 
they need is the priest who is conscious of the full meaning of 
his priesthood, the priest of deep faith, who professes his faith 
courageously, prays fervently, teaches with deep conviction, 
serves, lives the beatitudes, knows how to love disinterestedly 
and is close to all, especially to those who are in most need.{67} 

In proclaiming the Gospel, the ordained priest must "avoid 
falsifying, reducing, distorting or diluting the content of the 
divine message". {68} His role in this regard "is not to teach his 
own wisdom but the Word of God and to issue an urgent invitation 
to all men to conversion and to holiness" {69} When the ordained 
priest starts propagating theological opinions that are opposed to 
the teaching of the Magisterium, or when he remains silent about 
those parts of the Gospel which are most counter-cultural, then by 
degrees his preaching loses its persuasive power and his flock 
begins to scatter. Hans Urs von Balthasar touched on this problem 
when he said: 

Today the people of God thirst for spiritual drink in a world that 
is ever more secularised and emptied of God. They want to find 
teachers of silence, of recollection, of prayer; and instead they 
find busy clerics and often religious who have gotten stuck in 
postconciliar confusions and anti-authoritarian disputes, 
endlessly struggling for their own identity. For this reason, many 
depart and seek what they have a right to in places where they 
cannot find it: from teachers of Eastern meditation, who may be 
able to give them psychological comfort but never the encounter 
with the loving God of Jesus Christ. Those searching people of God 
must not allow their sense of what is Catholic to be dulled; 
instead, they must realise their responsibility, and, in the hour 
when many pastors fall silent or even fail, the laymen must raise 
their cry of protest in the name of the complete Creed in which 
they were baptised.{70} 

TEACH TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE CHURCH'S MORAL DOCTRINE

The ministerial priesthood is inextricably linked to the Real 
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If faith in the Real Presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist diminishes, then esteem for the sacred 
meaning of the ordained priesthood will also diminish. When this 
happens says Josef Pieper: "There no longer...will be any reason 
whatsoever to see the priest as someone 'consecrated' and 'set 
apart' for the sacred. And it would be difficult to shake my 
conviction that the ultimate and perhaps the only cause of that 
much discussed 'identity crisis' of the priesthood nowadays is 
anything else but the unwillingness or even inability - for 
several reasons - to acknowledge and accept the connection between 
the sacramental, consecrating action of the priest and the divine 
presence in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice". {71} 

There is evidence of a decline in Eucharistic Faith amongst 
Catholics in both the United States and in Australia. This should 
be a matter of grave concern, especially when we consider the 
words of St Paul to those who approach the Sacrament without the 
proper disposition: "For all who eat and drink without discerning 
the body eat and drink judgement against themselves" (1 Cor. 
11:29). Referring to the situation in the United States, Bishop 
Weigand of Sacramento said: 

According to results of a Gallop survey taken in December 1991 and 
January 1992 on U.S. Catholic understanding of Holy Communion, 
only 30% believe 'they are really and truly receiving the Body and 
Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the 
appearance of bread and wine'. Some 29% think they 'are receiving 
bread and wine, which symbolise the spirit and teachings of Jesus 
and in so doing are expressing their attachment to his person and 
words'. Another 10% understand that they are 'receiving bread and 
wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present'. Twenty-three 
per-cent say they 'are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, 
which has become that because of their personal belief.

These results, said Bishop Weigand, "are terribly alarming because 
only the first formulation is orthodox Catholic doctrine. The 
others are all variations of the 16th century Protestant teachings 
from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. We have every reason to 
ponder how this most central teaching of our Catholic faith got so 
watered down and distorted over the past 25 years". {72} This loss 
of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by U.S. 
Catholics was further borne out by a Spring 1994 New York 
Times/CBS poll which showed that 70% of Catholics in the 18-44 age 
group think that at Mass the bread and wine serve only as mere 
"symbolic reminders" of Jesus rather than being changed into his 
Body and Blood. Commenting on these findings, Fr Kenneth Baker 
S.J. said: 

I can think of nothing that so indicts the quality of religious 
instruction in our Catholic Schools and colleges during the past 
thirty years as the sad results of these polls. They also indict 
the preaching of us priests who have failed in our duty to 
instruct the faithful on the basics of the faith, especially on 
such things as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Grace, the Sacraments 
and the Mass. We must ask ourselves: How is it possible that so 
many Catholics do not know what the Mass is all about? What are 
they thinking and doing when they go to Mass on Sunday? If they 
are truly Catholics, how is it possible that they do not know that 
Jesus Christ our Lord and God is really present body, blood, soul 
and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament? Have they never heard about 
that? Has not one teacher or bishop or priest told them what the 
faith of the Church is with regard to the Eucharist...Taking a 
broad view of the Catholic Church in the 1990s, what we see is a 
Church that is infiltrated with secularism and secular ideas. 
Therefore, many of our bishops and priests are pushing human and 
this-worldly values, rather than the adoration of God and the 
eternal salvation of our immortal souls. The supernatural is out 
and the natural is in. Therefore, our liturgy tends to glorify man 
rather than God. No wonder millions of Catholics do not know what 
the Mass is all about. Now is the time to do something about this. 
{73} 

In also expressing concern about these findings on the loss of 
Eucharistic faith, Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw said: "In the 
general crisis of the Church in the United States, no individual 
crisis is more serious and urgent than this one. This is not least 
because, as we shall see, this collapse of eucharistic faith is 
related, as both cause and effect, to the broader crisis". {74} 
Grisez and Shaw gave the major reasons for this loss of 
Eucharistic faith as: 

• the pervasive secularisation of Western culture; 

• erroneous theological theories such as transignification and 
transfinalisation, both of which were rejected by Pope Paul VI in 
Mysterium Fidei (1965); 

• unauthorised changes in the words and gestures of the Mass; 

• no first confession before first Communion; 

• indiscriminately inviting everyone (sometimes even non-
believers) to receive; 

• an overly casual approach to the consecrated elements; 

• virtual elimination of Benediction and other Eucharistic 
devotions outside the Mass; 

• removal of the tabernacle to an obscure place in some churches; 

• little or no pause for thanksgiving after Communion; 

• weak and ambiguous homilies on Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi; 

• general forgetfulness of heaven and hell which has to do with 
the propagation of an optimistic view that all will be saved - a 
belief which is at odds with the New Testament and tradition; 

• subversion of the sense of the sacred through sexual immorality. 

The last point made above by Grisez and Shaw is very significant. 
In some respects it indicates the presence of Gnostic tendencies 
amongst some Catholics which is something I will have occasion to 
deal with in greater depth in Chapter 3. Explaining how the 
decline in faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the Eucharist is 
related to the decline in sexual morality, Grisez and Shaw say: 

Underlying what has happened in this area is an implicit body-soul 
dualism: the essential reality of the human person is regarded, 
not as the body that is abused, but as something non-material - 
spirit or mind or soul - and 'mere bodily behaviour' is thought 
not to impinge significantly upon the moral goodness and holiness 
of this non-material self. Beyond the devastating impact this way 
of thinking has on morality, it also subverts the incarnationalism 
and sacramentalism at the heart of Catholic faith. Specifically, 
it subverts faith in the Real Presence. The problem is reinforced 
and made worse by pastoral practice that condones sexual sins and 
makes little of the sacrament of penance. To encourage people who 
live in bad marriages and other sinful relationships or who 
otherwise engage in unrepented sexual sins to receive Communion 
strongly suggests that nothing particularly sacred is involved in 
Communion - that people who find themselves in these situations do 
not really "eat and drink judgement against themselves".{75} 

Turning now to the other points made above regarding the decline 
in Eucharistic faith. There is an urgent need for a renewed 
Eucharistic catechesis which would re-emphasise the sacred in the 
liturgy. Fr Max Thurian, who is a member of the International 
Theological Commission, says that the great problem of 
contemporary liturgical life (boredom and apathy etc) stems from 
the fact that the celebration of the Holy Mass "has sometimes lost 
its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of adoration". 
{76} We often encounter says Fr Thurian, "an inflation of words, 
explanations and comments, homilies too long and poorly prepared, 
which leave little room for the mystery being celebrated". {77} In 
saying that there is a great need to rediscover the liturgical 
enthusiasm of Vatican II, Fr Thurian adds: "Bishops and those 
responsible for the liturgy should give new life to what before 
Vatican II was called the 'liturgical movement', not for purposes 
of innovation but to revive true, beautiful liturgy, the prayer of 
the whole Church and the source of spiritual enrichment for every 
Christian". {78} Coupled with this need to rediscover the sense of 
the sacred in the liturgy, it must always be borne in mind that 
any changes to the Mass can take place only with the approval of 
the Magisterium and the appropriate Ecclesiastical authority. One 
of the worst liturgical abuses we have witnessed in recent times 
is the way in which some priests and liturgists have treated the 
Holy Mass as though it was their personal possession. Speaking of 
this, Fr Thurian said: 

The celebrant must remember that he is there to serve the liturgy 
of God's People. The text of the liturgical prayers is not at his 
disposal to be modified according to his whim or for personal 
theological reasons...There is a sort of neoclericalism bent on 
modifying the liturgy, which the faithful however have the right 
to receive in its integrity as a gift of Christ and the Church, 
without priests taking the liberty of changing it. The faithful 
expect this fidelity to Tradition, since the liturgy is a good 
belonging to all the People of God. The liturgy has a formative 
character. Through the liturgy, the Church hands on the Gospel of 
Christ in all its wealth and diversity. The liturgy is one of the 
forms of the living Tradition, by which the word of God is 
communicated to men in order to transform them. Thus it cannot be 
modified without undermining in its fullness the Church's 
intention in her transmission of the truth through the 
liturgy.{79} 

Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass should be encouraged. 
Speaking of the place of Eucharistic adoration in the life of St 
John Vianney, Pope John XXIII said: 

"We can hardly conceive of the depth of his burning devotion to 
Christ hidden beneath the Eucharistic veils...He worshipped the 
adorable Sacrament of the Altar with an incandescent love, and his 
soul was drawn to the sacred tabernacle irresistibly, as by some 
supernatural magnetic power". {80} In speaking of Eucharistic 
adoration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church said: "As faith in 
the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church 
became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord 
present under the Eucharistic species...In his Eucharistic 
presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved 
us and gave himself up for us, and he remains under signs that 
express and communicate this love. The Church and the world have a 
great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in the 
sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in 
adoration". {81} Speaking of how we can foster Eucharistic 
adoration, Fr Max Thurian says: "It is fitting that the tabernacle 
be placed in such a way that it can be seen on entering the 
church. It should be beautiful and illuminated, like an act of 
praise to the glory of Christ really present. The whole church 
should be arranged so as to invite adoration and contemplation 
even when there are no celebrations. One must long to frequent it 
in order to meet the Lord there...The church, by its beautiful 
liturgical layout, its well-designed and solemnly adorned altar, 
its tabernacle radiating Christ's real presence should be the 
beautiful house of the Lord and of his Church, where the faithful 
love to recollect themselves in the silence of adoration and 
prayer". {82} 

To create an environment conducive to prayer and adoration, it is 
important that the church interior be adorned with religious 
images and icons. As opposed to this, it is not uncommon today to 
walk into a church only to have difficulty finding there a sacred 
image. Even if some are there, they are often tucked away in some 
obscure corner and of such a bland nature as to be barely 
distinguishable from poorly painted murals in a city subway. When 
not due to the growing secularisation of a society that is 
becoming ever more estranged from spiritual values, this neglect 
of the place of religious images in the spiritual life can be 
expressive of a resurgent iconoclasm. The iconoclast movement 
considered the veneration of images a return to idolatry. While 
the iconoclasts would not allow their churches to be adorned with 
religious art and icons, they had no objection however to 
importing profane images into their places of prayer and worship. 

The iconoclast heresy was condemned by the Second Council of Nicea 
(787). In sanctioning the veneration of sacred images, this 
Council permitted that the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the 
martyrs and the saints be represented in pictorial form and 
sculptor in order to sustain the prayer life of the faithful. To 
commemorate the 1200th anniversary of this Council, Pope John Paul 
II issued an Apostolic Letter entitled Duodecimum Saeculum in 
which he pointed out that the iconoclast movement ultimately 
"called into question the whole Christian vision of the reality of 
the Incarnation and therefore the relationships of God and the 
world, grace and nature, in short, the specific character of the 
'new covenant' that God made with humanity in Jesus Christ". {83} 
The Holy Father added that in working with the elements of matter, 
Christian art should seek to speak "the language of the 
Incarnation". In saying this, Pope John Paul II quoted the 
beautiful expression of St John Damascene who in speaking of the 
Incarnation referred to Christ as the One who "deigned to dwell in 
matter and bring about our salvation through matter". {84} 

In Duedecimum Saeculum, Pope John Paul II placed the veneration of 
sacred images within an overall Christian context when he said: 

"The iconography of Christ involves the whole faith in the reality 
of the Incarnation and its inexhaustible meaning for the Church 
and the world. If the Church practises it, it is because she is 
convinced that the God revealed in Jesus Christ has truly redeemed 
and sanctified the flesh and the whole sensible world, that is man 
with his five senses, to allow him to be ever renewed in the image 
of his Creator (cf. Col 3:10)". {85} After recalling the teaching 
of Pope Hadrian I that by praying before a sacred image "our 
spirit will be carried by a spiritual attraction towards the 
invisible majesty of the divinity", the Holy Father concluded 
Duedecimum Saeculum by saying that "the rediscovery of the 
Christian icon will also help in raising awareness of the urgency 
of reacting against the depersonalising and at times degrading 
effects of the many images that condition our lives in 
advertisements and the media, for it is an image that turns 
towards us the look of Another invisible one and gives us access 
to the reality of the spiritual and eschatological world". {86} 
The iconoclast mentality has continued to assert itself in various 
forms throughout history. During the Reformation in England for 
example, the impassioned leaders of the new "Protestant 
iconoclasm" set about "the stripping of the altars" whereby they 
substituted the commonplace for the sacred. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 1 ENDNOTES

• 1 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium , n.11; cf. Catechism of the 
Catholic Church (CCC) n. 1411. 

• 2 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 17. 

• 3 The report on the vocations statistics appeared in 
L'Osservatore Romano on 31/6/96. 

• 4 Cf. Catholic Weekly, November 5, 1995, p. 6. 

• 5 Catholic Weekly, November 12, 1995, p. 22. 

• 6 Archbishop Henryk Muszynski, L'Osservatore Romano, 26/8/92. 

• 7 Ibid. 

• 8 Fr Rom Josko, in an unpublished paper entitled The Sacrament 
of Holy Orders. 

• 9 Pope John Paul II, Holy Thursday Letter To Priests, 
L'Osservatore Romano, 27/3/96. 

• 10 CCC. n. 1551. 

• 11 CCC, n. 1551. 

• 12 Cf. Directory On The Ministry and Life of Priests, 
Congregation for the Clergy, n. 1. 

• 13 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 11. 

• 14 Josef Pieper. In Search of the Sacred, Ignatius Press, San 
Francisco, 1991, p. 46. 

• 15 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 5; cf. Catechism of the 
Catholic Church (CCC) n. 1582 

• 16 Josef Pieper, In Search of the Sacred, op. cit. p. 62. 

• 17 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2. 

• 18 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 10. 

• 19 Dr John M. Hass, in The Catholic Priest as Moral Teacher and 
Guide (A Symposium), Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1990, pp. 134-
35. 

• 20 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93. 

• 21 CCC. n. 1548. 

• 22 Pope John Paul II. Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 12. 

• 23 CCC. n. 1549. 

• 24 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 48. 

• 25 Ibid. 

• 26 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 28. 

• 27 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 12/5/93. 

• 28 Fr Brian Byron, in Priesthood: The Hard Questions, edited by 
Fr Gerald Gleeson, E. J. Dwyer, Sydney, 1993, pp. 43-44. Fr Byron 
chairs the Commission for Ecumenism in the Archdiocese of Sydney. 

• 29 Ibid. pp. 47-48. 

• 30 Ibid. pp. 53-54. 

• 31 Cf. Jean Galot, S.J. Theology of the Priesthood, Ignatius 
Press, San Francisco, 1985, p. 65. 

• 32 For these points on Christ as Teacher, Prophet, King and 
Priest, I have drawn on an article by Archbishop Henryk Muszynski 
referred to earlier and which was published in L'Osservatore 
Romano on 26/8/92. 

• 33 Fr Brian Byron, Compass Theological Review, Summer 1992, p. 
43. 

• 34 For a statement of the Church's doctrine on the Resurrection 
as a transcendent event, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 
nn. 647, 656. 

• 35 I have taken this description of the relationship between 
speech, intelligibility and reality from the back cover of Josef 
Pieper's book Abuse of Language-Abuse of Power, Ignatius Press, 
San Francisco, 1992. 

• 36 Fr Brian Byron, Compass Theological Review, Summer 1992, p. 
41. 

• 37 Ibid. p. 42. 

• 38 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 68. 

• 39 Pope John Paul II, DominicaeCenae, n. 9. 

• 40 CCC. n. 1330. 

• 41 CCC. n. 1365. 

• 42 CCC. n. 1366. 

• 43 Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), In Defense 
of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church, June 24, 1973, n.6. 

• 44 CCC. n. 1591. 

• 45 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 10. 

• 46 Jean Galot S.J. Theology of the Priesthood, op. cit. p. 118. 

• 47 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, n. 43. 

• 48 Cf. CCC. nn. 1120, 1547, 1592. 

• 49 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 26. 

• 50 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 22. 

• 51 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93. 

• 52 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93. 

• 53 Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem, n. 10. 

• 54 Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 21. 

• 55 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 15/11/95. 

• 56 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 34. 

• 57 Ibid. n. 3. 

• 58 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93. 

• 59 Bishop Patrick Dunn, Priesthood, Alba House, New York, 1990, 
p. 20. 

• 60 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 17/11/93. 

• 61 The statement of the Kansas Bishops was first published in 
Origins on 13/7/95. 

• 62 Cf. Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 7/7/93. 

• 63 Bishop David Konstant, Australian, 2/11/95. 

• 64 Directory On the Ministry and Life of Priests, Congregation 
for the Clergy, n. 33. 

• 65 Ibid. 

• 66 Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 43; Directory On Ministry 
and Life of Priests, n. 33. 

• 67 Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II, Letter to Priests, Novo 
Incipiente Nostro, 6 April, 1979, n. 7. 

• 68 Directory On Ministry of Priests, n. 45. 

• 69 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 26. 

• 70 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen, 
Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1987, pp. 113-114. 

• 71 Joseph Pieper, In Search of the Sacred, op. cit. p. 30. 

• 72 Bishop W.K. Weigand, AD2000, June 1994. 

• 73 Fr Kenneth Baker, S.J. Editorial, Homiletic and Pastoral 
Review, February, 1995. 

• 74 Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw, The Crisis of Eucharistic 
Faith, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, February 1995, pp. 16-21. 

• 75 Ibid. 

• 76 Fr Max Thurian, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/7/96. 

• 77 Ibid. 

• 78 Ibid. 

• 79 Ibid. 

• 80 Pope John XXIII, Encyclical Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia, n. 
28 

• 81 CCC. nn. 1379-1380. 

• 82 Fr Max Thurian, L'Osservatore Romano, 24/6/96. 

• 83 Pope John Paul II, Duodecimum Saeculum n. 8. 

• 84 Ibid. n. 11. 

• 85 Ibid. n. 10. 

• 86 Ibid. nn. 9, 11. 

CHAPTER II

JESUS CONFERRED THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS ON THE APOSTLES

1.AT THE LAST SUPPER CHRIST INSTITUTED THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD 
2.THE EARLY CHURCH WAS HIERARCHICALLY ORGANISED 

Catholic educational institutions have an important role to play 
in defending the true identity of the ordained priest. In order to 
do this however, it is essential that theology courses and related 
disciplines taught at Catholic tertiary institutions be faithful 
to the doctrine of the Church on the origin and nature of the 
ministerial priesthood. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be 
the case at the Australian Catholic University (ACU) in Sydney 
where the doctrine of the Church has been contradicted in various 
units of the Graduate Diploma in Religious Education Course which 
is currently being run there. [1] This is a two-year part-time 
course which is conducted at the Strathfield campus. In the course 
which began in 1995, the Scripture Unit was entitled An 
Introduction To The Word of God and it contained two prescribed 
texts entitled The Christian Story by Dr Laurie Woods and Book of 
Readings edited by Sandra Carroll. Both Woods and Carroll lecture 
in the Religious Education Department at the ACU in Sydney. 
Speaking of ministry in the early Church, Woods says: 

Ministering to members of the community was an activity that grew 
naturally in Christian circles. . . Over a period of time, and as 
communities grew in size and complexity, different ministries 
became distinct and organised until a definite hierarchy of 
ministries was established in church order. . . In any discussion 
of ministry it has to be kept in mind that the New Testament 
communities did not have the kind of organisation that we are 
familiar with in today's church. Initially there were no ordained 
priests. . . There is not enough information for us to know how 
certain individuals came to preside over the Eucharist in the 
first decades of Christianity. We can only say that they performed 
this function with the approval of the community. There is 
certainly no evidence to suggest that there was a class of 
professional presiders equivalent to today's priesthood. As 
churches grew larger and developed more complex organisational 
structures it became necessary to regulate the selection of those 
who presided over the Eucharist. Eventually, this became a 
function reserved for presbyters and bishops (around the turn of 
the first century C. E.). [2] 

Carroll's Book of Readings contains an article written by Kerrie 
Hide entitled Women In Luke Acts. Hide, who lectures in the School 
of Religion and Philosophy at the Signadu Campus of the Australian 
Catholic University, begins her article by saying: 

Recent scholarship has highlighted the patriarchal nature of 
scripture and how it represents a male's point of view of women's 
experience. Luke's view of women from the time of the prophets, 
the time of Jesus' ministry and the time of the Church reflects 
this patriarchal interpretation of the significance of women. 
Feminist authors such as Schussler Fiorenza are pointing to the 
layers of Lucan redaction which suggest that while Luke reports 
more stories about women than any of the other gospel writers, 
they are stories that generally dis-empower women and encourage 
them to remain in subordinate positions. [3] 

Then, in reference to what she believes were the ministries 
performed by women in the early Church, Hide says: 

Lydia, named in Acts 16:11-15 is another woman of authority who 
had her own business in purple cloth trading. As a gentile 
worshipper of God she becomes a model of perfect discipleship 
because she hears the word of God and takes this to her heart so 
that her conversion takes place at a personal and communal level. 
She then shares her insight with her entire household and becomes 
a model of hospitality, an indication of her true discipleship. 
There is no evidence that she did not celebrate eucharist and 
since her home became the mission base for the Philippian church 
it is highly likely that she did so. . . through Jesus women were 
encouraged to realise the reign of God in their midst and to be 
involved in all ministries in the Church [4] 

The Unit on the Sacraments for the Graduate Diploma in Religious 
Education is entitled Religious Education And Living The Tradition 
(Code RE 601). The Unit began in February 1996 and the recommended 
text is a book called Sacraments Alive written by Sister Sandra 
DeGidio, OSM. In fact the book is compulsory reading for the 
students since part of their written assessment for the unit 
requires them to answer questions at the end of certain chapters 
in DeGidio's book. In her introduction to the Sacrament of Holy 
Orders, DeGidio says: 

This is, without doubt, the most difficult sacrament for me to 
address. This difficulty exists because holy orders is incredibly 
complicated in its origin and development. The greater difficulty 
for me, though, has to do with the changing role of ministry in 
today's church and the current unchanging climate and attitude in 
the institutional church. In a word, I have a real problem, 
scripturally, theologically, and in justice, with the exclusion of 
women and married people from ordained ministry. I also have a 
problem with the attitude of clericalism that is present in the 
church and some of its leaders, and with a hierarchical structure 
in which some people are caught, some people wield power for 
power's sake, and some are squeezed out.

I bring to this chapter some anger. And I bring to this chapter 
some pain. Pain for my sisters who feel gifted for and called to a 
priesthood that is not open to them. Pain for my brothers who must 
make a choice between celibacy and service. Pain for the Christian 
communities whose church doors are closed because some minds seem 
closed about ministry and priesthood. . . It strikes me that if 
Peter or any of the twelve apostles - or any of the seventy-two 
disciples or any of the first Christians, for that matter - were 
to come back today, they would be truly puzzled by a priesthood 
imbued with personal powers and thought of as being personally 
instituted by Jesus himself. It is my guess that they would look 
to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), and find that nowhere 
in the story of the origin of Christianity is the word priest. 
What they would know is that Jesus called twelve ordinary lay 
people as his apostles, to preach and teach. When Judas defected, 
the Twelve chose Matthias as a replacement, but after that there 
was no immediate attempt by the early church to replace the 
twelve. They were in a sense, founding fathers, living witnesses 
to the Christ event. "Apostolic succession" had little to do with 
bishops and priests in the early church. It had everything to do 
with discipleship and with being faithful to the Jesus tradition. 
. . At best, we can say that Jesus commissioned those who were 
closest to him to use their gifts. He wanted them to be part of 
and to influence the political, social, and cultural character of 
their communities". [5] 

I assume that in referring to "New Testament Communities", Woods 
is in fact referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ which 
"subsists in the Catholic Church" and which "is governed by the 
Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". [6] 
The New Testament does not contain a shred of evidence for Woods' 
assertions about the origin of the ministerial priesthood in the 
Church. Also, from what Hide has written, I understand her to be 
saying that since "all ministries" in the early Church were open 
to women, then Lydia possibly presided over a Eucharistic 
celebration. The approach to the Bible taken by Hide and DeGidio 
is typical of those feminist theologians who politicise the 
interpretation of Sacred Scripture to such an extent as to 
relativise the objective truth which it contains. Speaking of 
this, Fr Albert Vanhoye, S. J. who is Secretary of the Pontifical 
Biblical Commission says: 

As for the attempt made several years ago to base an 
egalitarianism upon a 'feminist theological reconstruction of 
Christian origins', it is unfortunately necessary to say that it 
is without theological validity because, instead of accepting the 
testimony of the New Testament, it adopts a 'hermeneutics of 
suspicion' in regard to it. That is, in studying the writings of 
the New Testament, it takes as a point of departure the 
'suspicion' that their authors more or less consciously hid their 
egalitarian leaning, which was supposedly the tendency of Jesus 
and his first disciples. Consequently, they claim to reconstruct 
this 'authentic' orientation through the unilateral use of some 
clues found in the texts, completing them with many conjectures, 
often directly contrary to other New Testament texts. Such a 
method is obviously not capable of providing the Church with a 
sure foundation for changing one of her traditions in such an 
important area (non-admission of women to the ranks of the 
ministerial priesthood) . A reconstruction based on historical 
conjecture is completely out of place in this matter. The only 
valid foundation is perfect obedience to the word of God. [7] 

AT THE LAST SUPPER CHRIST INSTITUTED THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

While the words "ordained" and "ministerial" priest do not appear 
in the New Testament, equivalent terms such as presbyteroi 
(presbyters) do. The word "presbyteroi" initially meant "elder 
ones" or "elders" which in French is translated as "pretres" and 
hence the English word "priests". Those who received the power of 
the apostolic ministry from the Apostles were called "episcopoi" 
which primarily used to mean "overseers". The English word 
"Bishop" comes from this Greek term "episkopos". In the New 
Testament however, it is not always easy to distinguish between 
"presbyters" (elders) and "bishops" (overseers). [8] In 
establishing the Church, Christ inscribed within it the 
ministerial priesthood as one of its constituent elements. The 
Eucharist, and the ministerial priesthood which is inextricably 
linked to it, are grounded in the words and deeds of Jesus at the 
Last Supper. In teaching that the ministerial priesthood was 
instituted by Christ Himself, the Council of Trent said: "If 
anyone says that by the words 'Do this in remembrance of me' (Lk 
22:19; 1 Cor 11: 24) Christ did not establish the apostles as 
priests or that He did not order (ordinasse) that they and other 
priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema". [9] 
Elaborating on this doctrine in a later session of the Council, 
Trent added: "Sacrifice and priesthood are so joined together by 
God's foundation that each exists in every law. And so, since in 
the new covenant the Catholic Church has received the visible 
sacrifice of the Eucharist from the Lord's institution, it is also 
bound to profess that there is in it a new, visible and external 
priesthood into which the old one has been changed. The sacred 
scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has 
always taught, that this was instituted by the same Lord Our 
Saviour, and that power was given to the Apostles and their 
successors in the priesthood to consecrate, offer and administer 
his body and blood, as also to remit or retain sins". [10] In 
harmony with this teaching, Trent went on to declare: "If anyone 
should say that in the New Testament there is no visible and 
external priesthood, or that power is not given to consecrate and 
offer up the true body and blood of the Lord and to forgive sins, 
but only the duty and mere function of preaching the Gospel. . . 
let him be anathema". [11] The teaching of Trent on the origin and 
nature of the ministerial priesthood was reaffirmed by the Second 
Vatican Council when it said: "The same Lord has established 
certain ministers among the faithful in order to join them 
together in one body where 'all the members have not the same 
function' (Rom. 12:4). These men were to hold in the community of 
the faithful the sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice 
and forgiving sins, and were to exercise the priestly office 
publicly on behalf of men in the name of Christ". [12] In speaking 
of the mission and power to celebrate the Eucharist which Christ 
conferred on the Apostles when he addressed to them the 
sacramental charge "Do this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 
11:24-25), Pope John Paul II said: "The charge to do again what 
Jesus did at the Last Supper by consecrating bread and wine 
implies a power of the highest degree; to say in Christ's name, 
'This is my Body', 'This is my Blood', is to be identified with 
Christ, as it were, in the sacramental act". [13] On another 
occasion when speaking of the ministerial priesthood and its 
institution by Christ, Pope John Paul II said: "The participation 
in Christ's one priesthood, which is exercised in several degrees, 
was instituted by Christ, who wanted differentiated functions in 
his Church as in a well-organised social body, and for the 
function of leadership he established ministers of his priesthood. 
He conferred on them the sacrament of Orders to constitute them 
officially as priests who would work in his name and with his 
power by offering sacrifices and forgiving sins". [14] As we noted 
in the last chapter, the ordained priesthood finds its definitive 
expression in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and 
this partly explains why its institution by Christ took place at 
the Last Supper. Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said: "The 
Eucharist is the principal and central raison d'etre for the 
sacrament of the priesthood, which effectively came into being at 
the moment of the institution of the Eucharist, and together with 
it". [15] Repeating this teaching in his Letter to Priests for 
Holy Thursday in 1996, the Holy Father said: 

"Precisely during that Paschal event Christ revealed to the 
Apostles that their vocation was to become priests like him and in 
him. This took place when, in the Upper Room, on the eve of his 
death on the Cross, he took bread and then the cup of wine, and 
spoke over them the words of consecration. The bread and the wine 
became his Body and Blood, given up in sacrifice for all mankind. 
Jesus concluded by commanding the Apostles: "Do this in memory of 
me" (1 Cor 11:25). With these words he entrusted to them his own 
sacrifice and, through their hands communicated it to the Church 
for all time. By entrusting to the Apostles the memorial of his 
sacrifice, Christ made them sharers in his priesthood. For there 
is a close and inseparable bond between the offering and the 
priest: the one who offers the sacrifice of Christ must have a 
share in the priesthood of Christ. Consequently, the vocation to 
the priesthood is a vocation to offer in persona Christi his own 
sacrifice, by virtue of sharing in his priesthood. From the 
Apostles, then, we have inherited the priestly ministry". [16] 

While the Apostles were the first to be invested with the 
ministerial priesthood, Jesus did not intend it to be reserved to 
them alone. The Gospels tell us that during his earthly life, 
Jesus indicated his intention to establish the presbyterate by 
appointing certain "disciples" who, though subordinate and 
distinct from the Apostles, were nevertheless to be endowed with 
their priestly task (cf. Lk 10: 1-24). In reference to this, Jean 
Galot, S. J. says: 

Luke reports a mission of the disciples distinct from the mission 
of the Twelve. After recounting how Jesus called the twelve 
together and invited them to proclaim God's kingdom (Lk 9:1-2), he 
writes: "And the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them 
ahead of him in pairs, to all the towns and places he himself was 
to visit" (Lk 10:1). As in the case of the twelve, Jesus addressed 
to them words of instruction. When we compare the two missions, we 
notice no significant difference between the one and the other. 
The purpose is the same: to proclaim the good news. Like the 
Twelve, the seventy-two disciples are endowed with Christ's 
authority to teach. According to Luke, they are told: "Anyone who 
listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, 
and those who reject me reject the one who has sent me' (Lk 10: 
16). There is a similarity also between the powers conferred on 
the two groups. . . "(Lk 10:17-19). [17] 

This account of the commissioning of the Seventy-two leads Galot 
to the following conclusion: 

Jesus willed to share with the seventy-two disciples, as well as 
with the Twelve, his own mission to proclaim the Gospel and his 
power over the forces of evil. This proves that Jesus intended to 
appoint, together with the Twelve, a large number of disciples 
entrusted with the same mission. The Twelve were given a higher 
authority, but with respect to the essential characteristics and 
the power attached, the two missions are obviously similar. Jesus 
wills, then, that the Twelve should be surrounded by many co-
workers entrusted with a priestly task similar to their own. 
Nevertheless, the fact remains that only the Twelve received 
directly from Jesus the pastoral and priestly power intended to 
provide for the future of the Church. It was to them that the 
fullness of this power was entrusted, yet they in their turn would 
have to exercise that power together with co-workers to whom they 
would impart their own mission and power. [18] 

Pope John Paul II places the commissioning of the Seventy-two 
disciples in much the same context as Galot. He says: 

What the evangelist Luke attests is significant, namely, that 
Jesus sent the Twelve on mission (Lk 9:1-6), he sent a still 
larger number of disciples, to indicate as it were that the 
mission of the Twelve was not enough for the work of 
evangelisation. "After this the Lord appointed 72 others whom he 
sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to 
visit" (Lk 10:1). Doubtless this step only prefigures the ministry 
that Christ will formally institute later on. However, it already 
shows the divine Master's intention to introduce a sizeable number 
of coworkers into the 'vineyard'. . . Like the Twelve (cf. Mk 6-7; 
Lk 9:1), the disciples receive the power to expel evil spirits, so 
much so that after their first experiences they say to Jesus: 
"Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name. " 
This power is confirmed by Jesus himself: "I have observed Satan 
fall like lightening from the sky. Behold I have given you the 
power 'to tread upon serpents' and upon the full force of the 
enemy. . . "(Lk 10;17-19). This also means that they participate 
with the Twelve in the redemptive work of the one priest of the 
new covenant, Christ, who wanted to confer on them too a mission 
and powers like those of the Twelve. The establishment of the 
presbyterate, therefore, does not only answer one of the practical 
necessities of the bishops, who feel the need for coworkers, but 
derives from an explicit intention of Christ. In fact, we already 
find that in the early Christian era presbyters (presbyteroi) are 
present and functioning in the Church of the Apostles and of the 
first bishops, their successors (Cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 
6, 22, 23, 41; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5; 
Jas 5:14; 1 Pt 5:1, 5, 15; 2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1). [19] 

Since the ministerial priesthood was instituted by Christ and 
exists in the Church as a constituent element of it, then it is 
not possible as Laurie Woods asserts to conceive of the Church in 
its infancy without the presence in it of ordained priests. In 
regard to this point, Pope John Paul II said: 

The priest's fundamental relationship is to Jesus Christ, head and 
shepherd. Indeed, the priest participates in a specific and 
authoritative way in the "consecration/anointing" and in the 
"mission" of Christ (cf. Lk. 4:18-19). But intimately linked to 
this relationship is the priest's relationship with the Church. It 
is not a question of "relations" which are merely juxtaposed, but 
rather of ones which are interiorly united in a kind of mutual 
immanence. The priest's relation to the Church is inscribed in the 
very relation which the priest has to Christ, such that the 
"sacramental representation" to Christ serves as the basis and 
inspiration for the relation of the priest to the Church. In this 
sense the Synod Fathers wrote: "Inasmuch as he represents Christ 
the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church, the priest is placed 
not only in the Church, but also towards the Church. The 
priesthood along with the word of God and the sacramental signs 
which it serves, belongs to the constituent elements of the 
Church. . . " (1990 Synod, Proposition 7) . Therefore, the 
ordained ministry arises with the Church and has in bishops, and 
in priests who are related to and are in communion with them, a 
particular relation to the original ministry of the apostles - to 
which it truly "succeeds" - even though with regard to the later 
it assumes different forms. Consequently, the ordained priesthood 
ought not to be thought of as existing prior to the Church, 
because it is totally at the service of the Church. Nor should it 
be considered as posterior to the ecclesial community, as if the 
Church could be imagined as already established without this 
priesthood. [20] 

THE EARLY CHURCH WAS HIERARCHICALLY ORGANISED

Before examining the question of how the early Church was 
organised, it will be useful to first outline what the Catholic 
Church understands by the term Divine Revelation. According to 
Vatican II, Divine Revelation comprises both Sacred Scripture and 
Tradition. Sacred Scripture "is the speech of God as it is put 
down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit". [21] Sacred 
or Holy Tradition "transmits in its entirety the Word of God which 
has been entrusted to the Apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy 
Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, 
enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, 
expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching". [22] As a 
result, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition "are bound closely 
together and communicate one with the other" because both of them 
flow out "of the same divine well-spring". [23] Consequently, the 
Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of revelation 
is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed 
truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and 
Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of 
devotion and reverence". [24] Sacred Tradition however needs to be 
distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, 
liturgical and devotional traditions which arise in local churches 
over time. These traditions can be "retained, modified or even 
abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium". [25] 
Instead, Tradition as part of Divine Revelation refers to what 
"comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from 
Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy 
Spirit". [26] The Apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of faith 
contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition to the whole Church. 
[27] Returning now to the question of the Church's structure. The 
Church is composed of "a human and a Divine element, " and insofar 
as it is a human reality, it is "a society structured with 
hierarchical organs". [28] This structure, which is "hierarchical 
and ministerial", was established by Christ and "has an essential 
role in the whole development of the Christian community, from the 
day of Pentecost until the end of time". [29] Its purpose in the 
Divine plan is to provide pastoral governance for the continual 
formation and growth of the community. The Twelve Apostles were 
the first to have this ministerial authority conferred upon them. 
According to Pope John Paul II, the following are the specific 
duties which are inherent in the mission entrusted by Christ to 
the Twelve: i) the mission to evangelise all nations, as the three 
Synoptic Gospels clearly attest (cf. Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:16-18; Lk 
24:45-48); ii) the mission and power to baptise (Mt 28:29), as a 
fulfilment of Christ's command, with a baptism in the name of the 
Holy Trinity. Since this baptism is tied to Christ's paschal 
mystery, it is also considered in the Acts of the of the Apostles 
as baptism in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16); iii) the 
mission and power to celebrate the Eucharist: "Do this in memory 
of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11: 24-25); iv) the mission and power to 
forgive sins (Jn 20: 22-23). [30] The mission of the Twelve 
"included a foundational role reserved to them which would not be 
inherited by others: being eyewitnesses of Christ's life, death 
and resurrection (cf. Lk 24:28), handing on his message to the 
early community as the link between divine Revelation and the 
Church, and for that very reason, initiating the Church in the 
name and power of Christ under the action of the Holy Spirit. 
Because of their function the Twelve Apostles represent a uniquely 
important group in the Church defined by the Nicene-
Constantinopolitan creed as apostolic. . . due to this unbreakable 
link with the Twelve". [31] In forming the group of the Twelve, 
"Jesus established the Church as a visible society organised to 
serve the Gospel and the coming of God's Kingdom". [32] In the 
group of the Apostles, a special authority was bestowed by Christ 
on Peter. Speaking of this authority bestowed by Christ on Peter, 
Pope John Paul II says: "This authority is pastoral, as we can see 
from the text on the mission specifically entrusted to Peter: 
'Feed my lambs. . . Feed my sheep' (Jn 21: 15-17). Peter 
personally receives supreme authority in the pastoral mission. 
This mission is exercised as a participation in the authority of 
the one Shepherd and Teacher, Christ". [33] In conferring on the 
Twelve their pastoral and ministerial authority which was related 
to their mission to evangelise all nations, Jesus knew it would 
take a long time, indeed a time that would last "until the end of 
the age" (Mt 28:20). Consequently, the Apostles understood that it 
was "Christ's will that they provide for successors, who as their 
heirs and representatives, would continue their mission". [34] 
Speaking of this, Pope St. Clement of Rome, who was the third 
successor of St Peter, wrote: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord 
Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of Bishop. 
For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, 
they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and 
afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, 
other approved men should succeed to their ministry". [35] 
Referring to the Church's hierarchical and ministerial structure 
and its institution by Christ, the Second Vatican Council said: 

This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican 
Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the 
eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles 
with their mission, as He Himself had been sent by the Father (cf. 
Jn 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, 
should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. 
In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and 
undivided he put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in 
him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the 
unity both of faith and of communion. . . That divine mission, 
which was committed by Christ to the Apostles, is destined to last 
until the end of the world (cf. Mt 28:20), since the Gospel, which 
they were charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of 
all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were 
careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted 
society. [36] 

It is impossible to conceive of the Church at any stage of its 
existence without its hierarchical and ministerial structure. 
Speaking of this as early as A. D. 115, St. Ignatius of Antioch 
said: "When you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, 
it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but 
as Jesus Christ. . . Let everyone respect the deacons as they 
would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as 
a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and 
college of Apostles. Without these it cannot be called a Church". 
[37] The testimony of St Ignatius of Antioch is very important 
because not only was he the third bishop of Antioch (St. Peter was 
the first), but he was also a hearer of St. John the Evangelist. 
Around the year 115, St. Ignatius died a martyr's death when he 
was sentenced to the beasts in the arena during the reign of the 
Emperor Trajan. From earliest times also, it was acknowledged that 
supreme power over the whole Church belonged to the Bishop of Rome 
as the successor of St. Peter. For example, St Irenaeus, the 
martyred Bishop of Lyons, insisted that in doctrinal disputes, 
agreement with the Church of Rome was the test of orthodoxy. 
Further to this, he explained that the root of all heresy is found 
in deviation from the Church's teaching authority as centred in 
the Pope who is the successor of St Peter. In his youth, St. 
Irenaeus who was a native of Asia Minor, had been a pupil of St. 
Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. St 
Irenaeus therefore saw himself in continuity of teaching with the 
Apostles. [38] Commenting on the relationship of the Apostolic 
authority to the structure of the Church, Hans Urs von Balthasar 
says: 

The Catholic Church will never be able to abandon the idea that 
Jesus entrusted his powers of consecration and of absolution from 
grievous guilt to an office in the Church that was first carried 
out by the "Apostles" and then explicitly passed on to others who 
in turn pass it on: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you 
set in order anything that is still lacking and appoint presbyters 
in each city, as I directed you to do" (Titus 1:5). This order 
appears completed even in the earliest postapostolic writings 
(Letter of Clement, circa 96; Letters of Ignatius, circa 115), and 
the Church cannot go back beyond this order to possible but more 
or less hypothetical community structures that formed under the 
eyes of the Apostles and with their approbation. Full communion of 
Churches - and the Eucharist is the expression of the full, not of 
a partial, communion - presupposes communion, both visibly 
embodied and spiritually acknowledged, in the office of the 
Church, of which one cannot say. . . that it can be changed in its 
essential structure by the Church herself. For it is essentially 
and permanently a gift of Christ to the Church, which is permitted 
to be what she is by virtue of this gift. [39] 

Bishop Dunn draws attention to the key role of the Apostles and of 
the "official Church" in the appointment of leaders during the New 
Testament era. He says: 

The most detailed information we have on how early Church leaders 
were appointed comes from the account of the institution of "the 
Seven" (Act 6:1-6). The initiative is taken by "the official 
Church", in this case "the Twelve", who call a full meeting of 
"the disciples", and suggest to them what should be done to settle 
the differences between the "Hellenists" and the "Hebrews". "The 
whole assembly approved this proposal", held an election, and 
"presented these to the apostles", it is these "official leaders" 
who then, through prayer and the laying on of hands, confirm "the 
Seven" in office. Other New Testament texts which refer to the 
instituting of ministers make no mention of any community role in 
the process - so, whatever form it may have taken, it certainly 
does not seem to have been the most decisive element. It is said 
of Paul and Barnabas, concerning the communities they had founded: 
"In each of these churches they appointed elders" (Acts 14:23). . 
. Titus was left behind in Crete "to get everything organised 
there and appoint elders in every town, in the way that I told 
you" (Tit 1:5). [40] 

Regarding the hierarchical structure of the Church communities 
established by St Paul, Bishop Dunn says: "Paul's letters reveal 
that none of his communities was permitted to go its own way. He 
insists that they remain faithful to what was done 'everywhere in 
all the churches' (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17). Although so conscious of his 
own apostolic authority. . . Paul was still prepared to submit his 
version of the Gospel to 'the leading men' in Jerusalem to be sure 
of their approval (Gal 2:2). Paul feared that without this 
recognition from 'the official church' his own work would lose its 
validity". [41] There is no possibility then that any of the 
earliest Church communities existed in a form other than with a 
hierarchical and ministerial structure that rested on the Apostles 
and their successors. According to Hans Urs von Balthasar, the 
faith which expresses itself in the New Testament "is not the 
faith of isolated individuals but that of a community. This 
community is linked to its founder; Jesus had himself chosen, 
trained and commissioned its nucleus, the Twelve". [42] From 
Peter's first appearance in the Acts of the Apostles, "through the 
strict Church regime exercised by Paul in his communities, to the 
teaching of the First Letter of Peter about the task and attitude 
of the 'shepherds', it is clear that the Church is structured by 
office". [43] The office "must thus itself be a sacrament received 
from Christ or those commissioned by him". [44] Since "the opinion 
of the New Testament about Christ cannot be contradictory in 
itself, " we can say that "however the first communities may have 
been organised structurally, some this way and others that way, it 
cannot have been the will of the Apostles, who determined the 
structure, to plan or even to tolerate contradictory structures: 
for example, next to a 'hierarchic' structure in which chosen 
heads, approved by the Apostles, led the community, a purely 
'democratic' structure in which the community consecrated its 
leaders by its own authority and enabled them to perform 
sacramental acts". [45] We know for certain that leaders of some 
sort existed in Corinth. In the Letter to the Philippians "they 
are expressly mentioned together with deacons, and Paul certainly 
did not establish two fundamentally different community structures 
in such close vicinity. These leaders may have been with Paul when 
the letter was written. Besides Paul sends his official 
collaborators to Corinth 'for an apostolic visitation'". [46] Von 
Balthasar concludes his discussion of the early Church by saying 
that its structures were consolidated slowly under the eyes of the 
Apostles. [47] In relation to this question of Apostolic 
succession, Vatican II said: "In order that the mission entrusted 
to them might be continued after their death, they (Apostles) 
consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate 
collaborators, the duty of completing and consolidating the work 
they had begun". [48] As well as transmitting their apostolic 
authority to their successors, the Apostles also appointed 
presbyters as coworkers in the episcopal order. Regarding this, 
Vatican II said: "Christ sent the Apostles as he himself had been 
sent by the Father, and then through the Apostles made successors, 
the bishops, sharers in his consecration and mission. The function 
of the bishops' ministry was handed over in a subordinate degree 
to presbyters so that they might be appointed in the order of the 
presbyterate and be coworkers of the episcopal order for the 
proper fulfilment of the apostolic mission that had been entrusted 
to it by Christ". [49] Speaking of how the Apostles called other 
men to be Bishops and priests, Pope John Paul II said: 

In their turn, the apostles. . . progressively carried out their 
mission by calling. . . other men as bishops, as priests and as 
deacons in order to fulfil the command of the risen Jesus who sent 
them forth to all people in every age. The writings of the New 
Testament are unanimous in stressing that it is the same Spirit of 
Christ who introduces these men chosen from among their brethren 
into the ministry. Through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 6:6; 1 
Tm. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tm. 1:6) which transmits the gift of the Spirit, 
they are called and empowered to continue the same ministry of 
reconciliation, of shepherding the flock of God and of teaching 
(cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pt. 5:2). Therefore, priests are called to 
prolong the presence of Christ, the one high priest, embodying his 
way of life and making him visible in the midst of the flock 
entrusted to their care. We find this clearly and precisely stated 
in the first letter of Peter: "I exhort the elders among you, as a 
fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as 
a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of 
God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for 
shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in our 
charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief 
Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of 
glory" (1 Pet. 5:1-4). [50] 

The transmission of the Apostolic authority and the ministerial 
priesthood was effected through the imposition of hands by either 
the Apostles themselves or by those whom they appointed to succeed 
them in the Apostolic ministry. Some references to this in the New 
Testament are: 

"You have in you a spiritual gift which was given to you when the 
prophets spoke and the body of elders laid their hands on you, do 
not let it lie unused" ( 1 Tim $:14);

"Do not be too quick to lay hands on any man" (1 Tim 5:22);

"That is why I am reminding you now to fan into flame the gift 
that God gave you when I laid my hands on you" (2 Tim 1: 6).

The Catholic Church today, ruled by the Pope and the Bishops, and 
assisted by their presbyters (priests), has substantially the same 
hierarchical structure as the Church of the New Testament era. In 
reference to this, Jean Galot says that "Jesus does not limit 
himself to 'making the Twelve' in order to confer upon them his 
own priesthood. He also establishes a basic structure that 
pertains to the nature of this priesthood". [51] This structure, 
continues Galot, "is rightly called 'hierarchical', since it 
consists of a gradation of 'sacred powers', which is what the 
notion of the hierarchy entails". [52] Galot also points out that 
in judging by "the intentions disclosed by Jesus", there are three 
degrees in the mission and power of the shepherd. [53] He says 
that while "these degrees do not correspond exactly to the 
traditional trilogy of episcopacy, presbyterate, and diaconate", 
they have however "always being acknowledged by the Catholic 
Church in the doctrine and in the exercise of the priesthood". 
[54] Finally, says Galot, "In addition to the Twelve, there is the 
supreme pastoral power conferred on Peter, which marks the summit 
of the structure. We also have evidence suggesting that Jesus 
intended to give the apostles a large number of co-workers subject 
to their authority". [55] Holy Orders is the sacrament "through 
which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to 
be exercised in the Church until the end of time. Thus it is the 
sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: 
episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate". [56] The Magisterium of 
the Church recognises "that there are two degrees of ministerial 
participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy 
(bishops) and the presbyterate (priests) . The diaconate is 
intended to help and serve them". [57] There is continuity between 
the way candidates for the sacrament of Holy Orders were chosen in 
the early Church and what happens today. The essential rite of the 
Sacrament of Holy Orders "consists in the bishop's imposition of 
hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop's specific 
consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy 
Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate 
is being ordained". [58] This to me does not seem very far removed 
from the practice of the early Church. In view of all that has 
been said above about the hierarchical and ministerial nature of 
the Church, it should now be clear to see why Pope Pius VI taught 
that it is "heretical" to assert that "the power of the ministry 
and of ecclesial rule comes to the pastors from the community of 
the faithful". [59] If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not of 
Divine origin, but rather is something that merely evolved in the 
first few decades of the Church's life and whose form was 
dependent on the consent of the "local community", then the Church 
herself can change and manipulate this sacrament at will. Fr Galot 
warns of this danger of suggesting that the "community" had a 
decisive role in the appointment of leaders in the early Church 
when he says: "If the local community is entitled to institute 
ministries to meet its own needs, it is difficult to see what 
could possibly prevent the community from choosing women and 
entrusting to them the task of pastoral leadership". [60] 

------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 2 ENDNOTES

• 1 In this chapter, I will be referring only to the Scripture and 
Sacraments Units of this Graduate Diploma in Religious Education 
course. Overall, the course is seriously defective, in chapter 8 
of this book I will highlight other serious flaws in it. 

• 2 Laurie Woods, An Introduction To The Word of God, Australian 
Catholic University (NSW), 1995, p. 78. 

• 3 Kerrie Hide, in Book of Readings, by Sandra Carroll, 
Australian Catholic University, 1995, p. 183. This article by Hide 
was first published in the Spring 1994 edition of Compass: A 
Review of Topical Theology. 

• 4 Ibid. p. 189. 

• 5 Sandra DeGidio, OSM, Sacraments Alive: Their History, 
Celebration and Significance, Twenty-Third Publications, Mystic, 
Connecticut, 1994, pp. 122-24. It is incredible that while the 
Catechism of the Catholic Church is not included in the 
recommended reading for this course this book by DeGidio is 
compulsory. The book is so inadequate that it would need a very 
lengthy review to highlight its more serious defects. For example, 
she says that there is little if any scriptural evidence for the 
"notion of original sin (p. 40) and she advocates that the number 
of sacraments be increased to include "a sacrament for divorce" 
(p. 145) and "a sacrament for abortion" (p. 146). 

• 6 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 8. 

• 7 Fr Albert Vanhoye S.J., L'Osservatore Romano, 10/3/93. 

• 8 Cf. Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93. 

• 9 Council of Trent, DS 1752, Session XXII, 1562, Canon 2. 

• 10 Council of Trent, Session XXIII. 

• 11 Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon 1. 

• 12 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2. Footnote number 5 
appended to this statement of Vatican II was inserted by the 
Council Fathers to indicate that it had to be interpreted in the 
light of the teaching of the Council of Trent. 

• 13 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92. 

• 14 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93. Unless 
otherwise stated, wherever bold print appears in this book it has 
been inserted by this author. 

• 15 Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, n. 2. 

• 16 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 27/3/96. 

• 17 Galot. op. cit. p. 85. 

• 18 Ibid. 

• 19 Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 31/3/93. 

• 20 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n. 16. 

• 21 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 9. 

• 22 Ibid. 

• 23 Ibid. 

• 24 Ibid. 

• 25 CCC. n. 83. 

• 26 Ibid. 

• 27 CCC. n. 84. 

• 28 CCC. n.771; cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n.8. 

• 29 Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92. 

• 30 I have here summarised these specific duties of the Apostles 
as Pope John Paul II has listed them. For the full outline see 
L'Osservatore Romano, 8/7/92. 

• 31 Ibid. 

• 32 Ibid. 

• 33 Ibid. 

• 34 Ibid. 

• 35 Pope St. Clement of Rome, Letter to The Corinthians, cited in 
William A. Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical 
Press, Minnesota, 1970, Vol. 1, p. 10. 

• 36 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, nn. 18, 20. 

• 37 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, cited in 
William A. Jurgens' Faith of the Early Church Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 
20, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1970. 

• 38 References to the supreme authority over the whole Church of 
the Pope as the successor of St Peter are found in various 
writings of the Early Church Fathers; e.g. Letter to the 
Corinthians (St. Clement, circa. A.D. 96), Letter to the Romans 
(St. Ignatius of Antioch, circa A.D. 115), Against Heresies (St. 
Irenaeus, circa A.D. 190). 

• 39 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen, 
op. cit. p. 100. 

• 40 Bishop Patrick Dunn, op. cit. p. 40. 

• 41 Ibid. p. 38. 

• 42 Hans Urs von Balthasar, A Short Primer For Unsettled Laymen, 
op. cit. p. 29. 

• 43 Ibid. p. 31. 

• 44 Ibid. 

• 45 Ibid. p. 44. 

• 46 Ibid. p. 45. 

• 47 Cf. Ibid. 

• 48 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 20. 

• 49 Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, n. 2; cf. CCC. n. 1562. 

• 50 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, n.15. 

• 51 Galot, op. cit. p. 77. 

• 52 Ibid. 

• 53 Ibid. 

• 54 Ibid. 

• 55 Ibid. 

• 56 CCC. n. 1536. 

• 57 CCC. n. 1554. 

• 58 CCC. n. 1573. 

• 59 Pope Pius VI, Const. Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794: Dz. 
1502. 

• 60 Jean Galot, S.J. op. cit. p. 252. 

CHAPTER III

WOMEN ARE NOT CALLED TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

1.THE CHOICE OF THE 'TWELVE' 
2.THE APOSTOLIC COMMUNITY REMAINED FAITHFUL TO THE INTENTION OF 
THE LORD 
3.THE EQUALITY OF 'MALE AND FEMALE' DOES NOT MEAN THE SUPPRESSION 
OF DIFFERENCES 
4.SACRAMENTAL TRUTH AND WOMEN PRIESTS? 
5.REVEALED ANTHROPOLOGY 
6.CHRIST: BRIDEGROOM OF THE CHURCH 
7.MARITAL SYMBOLISM AND THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE 
8.ADAM: A MAN OR A WOMAN? 
9.'IN PERSONA CHRIST' OR 'IN PERSONA ECCLESIAE' - A QUESTION OF 
PRIORITY? 
10.WOMEN PRIESTS? - AN ANCIENT HERESY 

At the Last Supper Our Lord instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice 
of his Body and Blood. Speaking of this, the Catechism of the 
Catholic Church says: "This he did in order to perpetuate the 
sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come 
again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a 
memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a 
sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet in which 
Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of 
future glory is given to us". [1] Speaking of how the essence of 
the Eucharistic celebration as we experience it today has its 
origin in the words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper, Pope 
John Paul II said: "Beginning with the Upper Room and Holy 
Thursday, the celebration of the Eucharist has a long history, a 
history as long as that of the Church. In the course of this 
history the secondary elements have undergone certain changes, but 
there has been no change in the essence of the 'Mysterium' 
instituted by the Redeemer of the world at the Last Supper". [2] 
Consequently, the "sacred character of the Mass is a sacredness 
instituted by Christ" in which "the words and actions of every 
priest, answered by the conscious participation of the whole 
Eucharistic assembly, echo the words and action of Holy Thursday". 
[3] 

The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he 
comes", does not "only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. 
It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and 
their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his 
death, of his resurrection, and of his intercession in the 
presence of the Father". [4] From the beginning the Church has 
been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it 
is written: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and 
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers...Day by day, 
attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, 
they partook of food with glad and generous hearts". [5] It was 
above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of 
Jesus' Resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread" 
(Acts 20:7). Regarding the manner in which the Apostles determined 
the form of the Eucharistic celebration in the early Church, Fr 
Paul Stenhouse, MSC PhD said: 

Every Sabbath, and every day in some places, when the Bread was 
broken, this was done according to ritual laid down by the 
authority of the apostles. The liturgy of the Mass, in the rich 
variety of its ancient rites, was an action that ante-dated, and 
was quite independent of, any subsequent narrative that recorded 
it. When St Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians around 
56 AD he referred to "the tradition which I already had handed on 
to you" that "came from the Lord," concerning the Lord's Supper - 
the Mass (1 Cor 11, 23)...The Mass was the Church's principal, 
explicit and most solemn demonstration of her faith in action. The 
Mass was an action that made Jesus Christ visible to his followers 
in the midst of the Church...As they passed from city to city the 
apostles selected those whom they thought to be suitable and 
shared their power with them. They did this through the imposition 
of hands, accompanied by a ritual that like that of the Mass, was 
not written down, but communicated to the faithful by word of 
mouth. The Church's very life depended on this transmission of 
power. The conveying of this power was an act of authority similar 
to that which instituted the ritual of the Mass. Part of the power 
transmitted concerned the right and power to