Monasticism And Catholic Religious Life - Part 3

BRIDE OF CHRIST – PART 2

In part-1 I mused on the startling results of a survey conducted by the Catholic weekly Sathyadeepam among nuns. It revealed that behind the apparently happy exterior, there is a lot of discontentment floating around in convents. The root cause of this state of affairs can primarily be traced to the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience that every nun professes. These vows are the pillars on which ascetic monasticism, the idea that full spirituality is best achieved by renouncing the world and its pleasures are built. The vow of poverty compels the religious to detach herself from all material possessions; the vow of chastity forces her to kill off all the natural God-given physical urges that are part of His grand plan for the continuation of the human race; and the vow of obedience demands the individual to blindly subject herself to other people’s will turning her into part-zombie, part-robot.

The origin of ascetic monasticism goes back to the third and fourth centuries. There were many reasons for this idea to flourish at that time. Apostle Paul made Jesus a ‘salvation god’ on the lines of Osiris, the Egyptian god and believed in the fallen nature of man. He turned Christianity into a ‘salvation religion’. Like Plato, whose ideas he freely borrowed, he also believed that every human was composed of an immortal soul imprisoned in a physical and mortal body. Salvation can only be achieved through a proactive suppression of the body for the sake of the soul.

These ideas were supported and improved upon by Augustine of Hippo (354-430). In his effort to explain evil in this world, he invented ‘original sin’. The debauchery of his youth created such a guilty conscience in him that he declared sex the root of all evil. Only married couples should be allowed to engage in this ‘dirty act’. It should be done purely for procreation and not recreation. This mode of thought added to the prestige of chastity.

During its infancy, Christianity was unwilling to accept the practices of Rome. Many became martyrs for their faith. However, with the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 312 AD Christianity came into favor. The martyrdoms stopped. Christians had to invent new ways of suffering for the sake of salvation. Since the physical body was regarded as the root of all temptations, it had to be brought under control through voluntary physical deprivations and sufferings. The lack of opportunities for martyrdom and the need for controlling the physical urges of the body so as to save the soul led to the idea of monasticism. Hence the hair-shirts, the flagellations, the fasts, the bare-foot walking, the nightlong vigils and the blind obedience that was quite common in monasteries and convents until recently.

But times have changed. The last two centuries have seen a surge in secular thinking. Belief is giving way to reason. There is a realization that the promise of a heaven after death is the biggest investment fraud committed by two of the more popular religions: Christianity and Islam. At least, there are 72 virgins catering to the martyr in the Islamic paradise whereas the good Catholic can only expect to join a choir in heaven!

It is against modern-day thinking on human rights to make people enter into a contract to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience till death. It reminds one of bonded labor that is still extant in certain parts of rural India. When a nun takes the vow of obedience she literally pawns her life to her superiors and to the Church hierarchy. The argument that she takes her vows only after she turns 18 is tenuous. It is well known that her indoctrination and spiritual hallucinations start much earlier, often as a preteen.

The vow of poverty is a double-edged sword. One requirement prior to the profession is the renunciation of all rights to inheritance. This is one of the reasons for relatives to encourage girls to become nuns. It saves the family the trouble of raising a dowry. Some senior nuns are of the opinion that poverty and the guarantee of a secure life are the motivating factors for many undeserving candidates nowadays to enter the convent. Many among them turn out to be trouble makers.

The fact that the nun is forced to give away her rights to inheritance prior to her profession discourages any thought of leaving the convent. As an ex-nun, she has nothing in her name for survival. The perception that those who leave are perverts unable to control their sexual urges and/or rebellious brats is spread among the little lambs by convent authorities in connivance with the hierarchy. The unhappy nun is forced to continue in the convent against her will for fear of shame and unacceptability by her family and relatives. As per canon law 503 (a) those who leave the convent cannot claim anything for the services done there. Like used curry leaves, they are unceremoniously thrown out. With their prime past in most cases, marriage prospects are dim. Should one be surprised when reports of suicide in convents appear in the media? And are all deaths reported natural?

The vow of chastity goes against human nature itself. It is the cause of many of the problems the church finds itself in. “The devil never harmed the church so much as when the church herself adopted the vow of celibacy.” (Peter Comestor). The belief that when she becomes a nun, she also becomes the ‘bride of Christ’ is instilled in the young woman. Many in their teenage naivety take this twisted compensatory theology to heart and fantasize about their ‘first night’ with Jesus, as Sr. Jesme recalls in her autobiography Amen. The convent becomes the bridal chamber. After all, Jesus the groom is a handsome young man of thirty-three, something that enhances the intensity of her fantasies. Some saints (e.g. Theresa of Avila) have taken this intense love for Jesus to the erotic level. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as ‘erotomanic delusion’, a disorder in which someone claims that a famous person is married to or is in love with her.

Has anyone the right to deprive individual freedom in the name of obedience to ‘God’s will’ expressed through one’s superiors and the hierarchy? ‘God’s will’ is another fraudulent idea perpetuated on the little lambs to keep them in line. It has been observed that those engaging in continuous prayer, meditation and fasting in an effort to suppress their natural urges tend to develop neurotic problems. When such individuals are in charge, their administrative style often becomes neurotic as well and hence unbearable. However, under the vow of obedience, little can be done. Anyone who criticizes the rules and policies of convent authorities is accused of madness and confined to a mental asylum or they are ‘character-assassinated’. Surely, this is inhuman.

The empire building and the power-seeking that the Catholic Church began after the conversion of Emperor Constantine continue today with much greater vigor than ever. These days it is run on the lines of a multi-national company. But unlike other multi-national companies, Catholic Church, headed by a self-proclaimed infallible pope, continues to be feudal and dictatorial in its ways. A Global religious empire has been created. Religious congregations are part of the global religious colonization in the name of God. Its members, especially nuns, are forced to lifelong servitude bordering on bonded labor to maintain and support this establishment.

It is high time enlightened Catholics give a sympathetic hearing to the problems of our sisters and expose their exploitation in the name of religion/love of God/everlasting happiness in heaven/etc./etc.

[Published in the March 2011 issue of 'Snehasandesham']

Monasticism And Catholic Religious Life - Part 2

[The following article of mine was published in two parts in 'Snehasandesham', an e-publication by Alex Kaniamparambil  from UK in the early part of the decade. Both Alex and I are from Kaipuzha.] 

Brides of Christ - Part 1

The person I admire most in this world is a Catholic nun – Mother Theresa. Her dedication to bring succor to the poorest of the poor is without parallel.

As a Catholic child growing up in rural Kaipuzha, my life was influenced by the good nuns, be it in the catechism class or at school. Nuns are sometimes referred to as ‘brides of Christ’ since they are spiritually married to Christ at the time of their religious profession.

As the vagaries of life forced me into the big bad world, I became more and more aware of the excellent work done by the different congregations of nuns. They run orphanages, hospitals, and educational institutions; they take care of the handicapped, the abandoned, the sick, the dying. In South Africa where one person in three is a victim of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, I have seen nuns cleaning, feeding and being there even when their near and dear ones have abandoned them. The sight is so heart-renting, the stench so unbearable and deaths so frequent that one sister told me: “James sir, we cannot work like this for more than six months; we need to go away from this environment for the next six months to get our sanity back.”

There is no doubt that nuns all over are a force for good in the world. The question is: what goes on in the hearts and minds of these individuals who always wear a happy-go-lucky attitude on their veils? Is this a mask to hide the rumblings of a storm within? Does the look of contentment exist within the high walls of the convent?

Up until recently, the little lambs in the Catholic Church were not privy to life within convents. There is very little in Malayalam literature dealing with the inner workings of a nun’s mind; much less regarding what goes on within the four walls of a convent. Joseph Mattom (Lokam, Pisasu,Sareeram) and Pathrose Ayyaneth (Thiruseshippu, Yahoodayude Paramparyam) are two authors who did make the effort. In some sense, it was Sr. Abhaya’s murder that changed the status quo. The door was slightly opened with the publication of the details of her murder investigations. What the lambs saw within was not very edifying. These negative perceptions were confirmed by personal evidence when Sr. Jesme brought out her sensational autobiography Amen. An avalanche of skeletons fell out of convent cupboards. More than the salacious details, what shocked me was her revelation about efforts made by her own sisters and superiors to silence her by shutting her up in a mental asylum!

Why should the little lambs be interested in nuns of all people? Some would like to leave them alone to sort out their problems, whether they are personal or social, private or public. However, the fact remains that they are our daughters and sisters and nieces and aunts and above all, members of the Catholic community. What happens to them impacts us in one way or another.

A little digression at this point might spice up the discussion. One title in Ayyaneth’s short story collection Yahoodayude Paramparyam (Tradition of Judah) is Deiva vili (vocation/God’s call). Prasad, a government contractor, and George, a Math teacher, meet up in a bar after a long gap. Over a couple of drinks, they update the events in their lives after they left college. George is the protagonist with more colorful life. As a bachelor working in a rural school, he accidentally comes across the beautiful seventeen-year-old Selinamma bathing semi-nude in a small pond. He falls madly in love with her and asks her father for her hand in marriage. Selinamma, mesmerized as she is with the lives of nuns in the convent hostel where she boarded as a student, refuses. Instead, she insists on becoming a nun. Her Deiva vili came on a Good Friday during the Way of the Cross when she felt she heard Jesus pleading for help in carrying his cross. George in course of time gets over his disappointment and marries Nazeema, a colleague. But Selinamma has not disappeared from his life.

She becomes Sr. Paul.

A few years down the line people wake up one morning to the tragic news that young Sr. Paul has died of a heart attack. But George tells Prasad that it was a suicide. He is sure since he received a letter from Sr. Paul written a day before her death. She tells him that by the time he receives her letter, she would have escaped from this world. She is certain she is going neither to heaven nor to hell; she does not believe in heaven or hell or that she has a soul. It is a disbelief that has come quite late in her life.

As a seventeen-year-old, she was caught up in the emotional whirlpool of religious madness. But as she tried to get closer to God as a nun, her religious fervor turned cold and she became an atheist.

She falls in love with Dr. Latif, a surgeon in the hospital where she works as a nurse. Latif wants her to convert to Islam, an act that would totally shatter her God-fearing Catholic family. So, if she cannot marry and find happiness with Latif, it is meaningless to live life in a state of hypocrisy. The only option left is to take her own life. She asks George for forgiveness for refusing his marriage proposal, suffering as she was at that time from an intense bout of spiritual madness.

The story ends with George stating that he has not gone to church after this incident. He is not willing to face Jesus who is locked up in the tabernacle.

The above story may be a figment of the author’s fertile imagination. One must remember that imagination is a faculty that takes its raw materials from reality. The fact, however, is that there have been at least 14 cases of suicides by nuns in the recent past. The skeptic might argue that this reflects what is happening in society at large. But society at large does not live in such a close relationship with God as those in a convent. Contentment and happiness are assumed to be natural by-products of this closeness. So, what went wrong?

According to a survey conducted by the weekly Sathyadeepam among nuns, it was found that 25% of them are discontent. The actual figure maybe 75% if we are to believe ex-nun Prof Dr. Regina Valiaveettil. According to her, the convent environment is short on mutual love and care and long on legalese. What are the root causes of this dissatisfaction?

An understanding of the historical rationale of ascetic monasticism is of help in analyzing the problems faced by modern-day nuns living in high-walled communities. Monasticism is the idea that full spirituality is best achieved by renouncing the world and its pleasures. This renouncement implies the three ‘evangelical counsels’ of poverty, chastity, and obedience. One must detach oneself from all material possessions, abstain from sexual emotions, relations, and acts, and subdue one’s will through obedience. These three ‘counsels’ are now taken as vows for life by the religious including nuns at the time of their profession.

It is easy to trace some of the problems faced by nuns these days to the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience that they profess for life. Others can be traced to the rules and regulations by which they are to live as a group under one roof. Still, others are due to loss of faith in general, the rapid secularization in thinking, the emphasis on individuality and the value system taking a nose-dive towards pure utilitarianism. I hope to muse on these problems in the next issue.

[Published in the February2011 issue of 'Snehasandesham']

Monsticism And Catholic Religious Life - Part 1

Recent developments in the Kerala Catholic Church have made me ruminate on monasticism which eventually led to the starting of countless religious orders/congregations, all claiming to live the “religious life”. The following is a random sample of those developments:

·         The widely known case of Sr. Abhaya, a young nun, who was allegedly murdered when she stumbled upon two priests engaging in a ‘threesome’ with a nun.

·         The alleged rape of a nun by Franko Mulakkal, ‘Bishop Emeritus’of Jullundur. This pervert, who preferred unnatural sex is said to have forced nuns under his jurisdiction to perform nude cabaret dances in his room, after he had his sumptuous supper consisting of imported Italian pasta washed down with large doses of single malt whiskey.

·         The case of Sr. Lucy Kalappurakkal, who has been ordered to leave the convent for obtaining a driving license, buying a car and for publishing a book of religious songs.

·         The allegations by an ex-nun, Sr. Jesmy, who was thrown out by her order for pointing out illegal activities going on in her convent. She says that the ‘vow of obedience’ is (mis)used to force nuns to submit to the sexual demands of priests and bishops. She claims, she knows of nuns who have undergone hysterectomy to prevent pregnancy.

Of course, there are many religious, both priests and nuns, who are totally dedicated to their calling and do a wonderful job to help the sick, the needy, the aged, the abandoned, the handicapped, the mentally affected; in general for the dregs of society.

A brief history of monasticism

In 313 CE, Emperor Constantine ended the sporadic persecution of Christians and made Christianity the official religion of the empire. This had several consequences. The chances of martyrdom became almost nil, hence, Christians had to find other ways of imitating Jesus’ suffering. In addition, with the reversal of persecution, pagan worship became intolerant, giving rise to an all-powerful priestly class whose arrogance and corruption was nauseating to the more spiritually-minded.

After Constantine’s favoritism for Christianity, a new cultural permissiveness arose within the faith which made pious believers worry about immorality, abuse, and vice within the church. As such, many in the Jesus movement sought a different, less secular and more purist environment in which to pursue their spirituality. This was the beginning of monasticism.

There was another reason for the development of monasticism. Apostle Paul, who is credited with declaring Jesus divine and for starting Christianity, 
was a follower of Plato. Plato’s ideas of dualism influenced Paul to a great extent. According to Plato, 
the soul is superior to the body, the spiritual is superior to the material. Hence there is a need for suppressing the material body for the benefit of the soul. This suppression is done through fasting, self-flagellation, positive avoidance of physical and sexual pleasures, etc. – all supported by continuous meditation and prayer.

Monastic Life

All these factors led to the beginning of the monastic (derived from the Greek word ‘monos’ meaning ‘alone’) movement. It is a religious way of life in which one renounces worldly pursuits to devote oneself fully to spiritual work. The males were called monks and females, nuns.

From the 3rd century CE there developed a trend in Egypt and Syria which saw some Christians deciding to live the life of a solitary hermit or ascetic. They did this because they thought that without any material- or worldly distractions they would achieve a greater understanding of and closeness to God. In addition, whenever early Christians were persecuted, they were sometimes forced by necessity to live in remote mountain areas where the essentials of life were lacking. As these individualists grew in number, some of them began to live together in communities, continuing, though, to cut themselves off from the rest of society.

The first monk is said to have been St. Anthony of the desert (251-356 CE). He was an Egyptian holy man who initially lived as a hermit in the desert lands of the Nile. Later, he came out of his solitude to organize his disciples into a community of hermits.

From the 5th century CE, the idea of monasticism spread across the Byzantine Empire and then to Roman Europe where people adopted their own distinct practices based on the teachings of Saint Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-c. 543 CE). The Benedictine order encouraged its members to live as simple a life as possible with simple food, basic accommodation and as few possessions as was practical. There was a set of regulations that monks had to follow and because they all lived the same way, they became known as ‘brothers.’ His rule required monastic vows of stability (a lifelong commitment), fidelity, obedience (one is submissive to superiors), poverty (one gives up all wealth entering into the community) and chastity (one forsakes all carnal knowledge and pleasure).

Recruitment

People were attracted to the monastic life for various reasons such as piety; the fact that it was a respected career choice;  there was the chance of real power if one rose to the top, and one was guaranteed decent accommodation and above-average meals for life. The second or third sons of the aristocracy, who were not likely to inherit their father's lands, were often encouraged to join the Church and one of the paths to a successful career was to join a monastery and receive an education there (learning reading, writing, arithmetic, and Latin). Children were sent in their pre-teens, often aged as young as five. They were known as oblates, while those who joined aged 15 or over were known as novices. After one year a novice could take their vows and become a full monk and it was not always an irreversible career choice as rules did develop from the 13th century CE that youth could freely leave a monastery on reaching maturity.

Different Orders   

As monasticism flourished, different orders arose which addressed what they considered the most pressing concerns of their time, or some different way of honoring God which did not quite fit with other orders.

The best-known cenobitic (communal living) orders are:

Benedictines were the order founded by Saint Benedict c. 529 CE, although whether he ever intended to found an order and how he intended his guidelines to be used is still debated.

Cluniacs were a reformed order of Benedictines founded in France at the Abbey of Cluny in 910 CE. The Cluniac Reforms were a response to what was seen as too much interference from nobility in the lives of monks.

The Cistercians were founded in 1098 CE at Citeaux Abbey in France by Benedictines who advocated a return to the time of Saint Benedict and a life of austerity.

Carthusians were an order emphasizing the value of silence and contemplation. Monks lived in cells, emerging to take part in rituals and work primarily in silence.

Nunneries: Origins & Developments

Christian women who vowed to live a simple ascetic life of chastity, in order to honor God, acquire knowledge, and do charitable work, are attested to from the 4th century CE if not earlier, just as far back as Christian men who led such a life in the remote parts of Egypt and Syria. Indeed, some of the most famous ascetics of that period were women, including the reformed prostitute Saint Mary of Egypt (c. 344-c. 421 CE) who famously spent 17 years in the desert. Over time ascetics began to live together in communities, although they initially continued to live their own individualistic lives and only joined together for services.

Virginity was an integral requirement for a nun in the very early medieval period because physical purity was considered the only starting point from which to reach spiritual purity.A nun was expected to wear simple clothing as a symbol of her shunning of worldly goods and distractions. The long tunic was typical attire, with a veil to cover all but the face as a symbol of her role as a "Bride of Christ'.The veil hid the nun’s hair which had to be kept cut short. Nuns could not leave their nunnery and contact with outside visitors, especially men, was kept to an absolute minimum. Even so, there were cases of scandal, such as in the mid-12th century CE at the Gilbertine Watton Abbey in England where a lay brother had a sexual relationship with a nun and, on the discovery of the sin, was castrated (a common punishment of the period for rape, although in this case the relationship seems to have been consensual – this punishment should be re-introduced in the present era with the proliferation of pedophile and sex abuse cases against the clergy).

Mendicant Orders of Friars 

A new form of religious life came into existence in the thirteenth century. It was an age of growth and expansion. Men's minds were full of new ideas; they wanted leaders and instructors in religious matters; new agencies were required to meet the needs of a rapidly developing society. Neither the Monks nor the secular clergy could supply the want. The Monks and Regular Canons had always affected a certain seclusion. Their monasteries were mostly in the country, or if in a town, they were surrounded by a large precinct which kept them apart from the town life. The new Orders chose their habitations in or near towns. The Dominicans almost invariably set themselves down in the haunts of men; the Franciscans had an affection for hermitages and solitary places, but rarely were they very far from frequented spots; both Orders alike kept themselves closely in touch with the outside world, and aimed at doing it service.

The mendicant orders are marked by two characteristics: poverty, practiced in common; and the mixed life, that is the union of contemplation with the work of the sacred ministry. An important point to  be noticed is that the mendicant orders are founded only by favor of an express approbation of the sovereign pontiff, who approves their rules or constitutions.

The Dominicans and Franciscans, with the Augustinians and Carmelites, and some other Orders of less importance, all founded during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, formed a variety of the religious life quite separate from the Monks and Canons Regular, recognized as being so in Canon Law. They are called officially Mendicant Orders, from the practice, which all embraced at the beginning of their existence, of holding no property, and subsisting on alms. The popular name given to them everywhere was Friars. It expresses the familiar footing on which they placed themselves with the people, and which differentiated them from the Monks even more than their mendicancy.

Congregations A further growth has, however, taken place in an extension of the religious life, but on a lower level. Institutes have been founded in later times; they are not Orders, however, but Congregations. The Passionists and Redemptorists belong to this class and were founded about the middle of the eighteenth century. In more recent times have followed the Society of Mary, the Oblates of Mary, the Salesians, and others. At first sight, there may appear to be little to distinguish between a Religious Order and a Religious Congregation. One difference lies in the nature of the vows taken by their members; in an Order, they are solemn, in a Congregation they are simple. The chief difference between the two, however, is that religious who professes a solemn vow of poverty renounce ownership of all their temporal goods, whereas religious who profess a simple vow of poverty have a right to retain the ownership of their patrimony (an estate, endowment or anything inherited from their parents or ancestors) but must give up its use and any revenue.

Evolution of Catholic Priesthood - Part 3

“Priest Forever in the line of Melchizedek” – Who is Melchizedek?

This is a difficult question to answer since there is very little information about this individual in the Scriptures. It seems this person has been introduced to justify the naming of Jesus as a priest.

The character ‘Melchizedek’ first appears in Genesis chapter 14. He is confined to 3 verses: 18-20. Let us quickly look at the context of his sudden appearance and disappearance.

Noah, the hero of the flood that destroyed mankind, had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. One of the descendants of Shem was Terah whose sons were Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Haran was the father of Lot. (Remember the story of how his wife became a pillar of salt for looking back while fleeing Sodom; it was this same Lot who was made drunk and then raped by his daughters so that they could bear children.)

Abraham and his nephew Lot settled in Canaan with their possessions, including cattle, women, and slaves. Since there was not enough pasture for all their cattle, they decided to go their separate ways: Abraham remained in Canaan while Lot moved to Jordan valley and camped near Sodom.

Briefly, here is what happened soon after. An alliance of four kings led by Chedorlaomer of Elam went to war with another alliance of five kings including Bera of Sodom and Birsha of Gomorrah and defeated them. The four kings took everything in Sodom and Gomorrah including food. Since Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was living in Sodom, he too was captured, and all his possessions looted. When Abraham heard about this, he pursued the four kings with his fighting men ‘numbering 318’, defeated them, and recovered the loot that had been taken. He also brought back his nephew together with the women and other prisoners.

When he came back after his victory over the four kings, the king of Sodom went to meet him. Out of the blue, Melchizedek appeared on the scene from nowhere. “And Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and also a priest of the Most High God, brought bread and wine to Abraham, blessed him, and said, ‘May the Most High God …be praised.’ And Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the loot he had recovered”. Just as he appeared from nowhere, Melchizedek then disappears only to reappear much later in verse 4 in Psalms 110: “You will be a priest forever in the priestly order of Melchizedek”. He then reappears more ‘elaborately’ in the Letter to the Hebrews of the New Testament.

In the New Testament documents, Jesus is not called a priest. In fact, he was against Jewish priests of the time, calling them ‘vipers’, ‘whitewashed sepulchers’ and similar derogatory terms. Ancient priesthood tended to be hereditary. The establishment of Levites as priests for the Jewish community is related to the story of the golden calf followed by the episode of the ‘sacred violence’ in which members of the Levite tribe killed three thousand of their relatives to prove that they are on Lord’s side.

How then could Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, be a priest without being a Levite? The Letter to the Hebrews had to find a different lineage for him. It did this by appeal to a minor figure Melchizedek mentioned briefly only twice in the Old Testament books of Genesis and Psalms.

It appears the story of Melchizedek is an interpolation into the framework dealing with Abraham’s rescue of Lot. That framework itself is an addition to the text of Genesis. According to many scholars, the entire chapter 14 of Genesis shows no signs of being from the prime sources. It seems to be ascribed to a foreign source which explains the fact that Melchizedek, unlike the Hebrew priests, does not have the normal lineage (X son of Y, etc.) He seems to have been, according to the Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, a priest of the polytheistic Canaanite religion.

The Letter to Hebrews speaks of the priesthood of Jesus and his one sacrifice which redeemed mankind. It emphasizes the everlasting priesthood of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies. This Letter to Hebrews, written allegedly by St. Paul, is said to be (1) not Paul’s, (2) not a letter, and (3) not to Hebrews. Its core idea that Jesus is a priest is not reflected in the writings of Paul. Its style, unique vocabulary, sentence structure, rhetorical devices, and sophisticated language have no parallels in the rest of scripture. Using the assertions of the Letter to Hebrews, the priesthood was made an accepted institution among Christians. It made Jesus a priest and all priests his successors! The author of the pseudo-Pauline epistle makes no mention of the Last Supper, even when quoting the blood covenant of Moses.

Sacrament of Eucharist, Transubstantiation, and priest as the miracle worker

Regarding the Eucharist, it was not Jesus who instituted it, rather Paul. This is clear from 1 Corinthians 11.23-26:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same manner, He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as long as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

The Pauline Eucharist removed the element of actual supper but retained the ritual and godly presence. (This is what is happening during mass these days.)

One must distinguish between “Last Supper” and “Lord’s Supper.” Last Supper refers to the meal that Jesus had with his disciples before he died. Lord’s Supper, on the other hand, is the commemoration of the Last Supper and is in fact what is termed “Eucharist”. Valeriy A. Alikin in his book The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering has the following interesting take on this matter. He is describing what was happening among the followers of Jesus in the early Church.

“The primary function of the Lord’s Supper was to establish a fellowship, communion, and unity among the participants. This meal was an expression of their being a community. However, the interpretation of the community gathered for the supper as the ‘body of Christ’, the interpretation of the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood, and the attribution of the ceremony’s origins to an institution by the historical Jesus himself must all be regarded as early, yet secondary developments.

It has proved to be difficult to regard the Lord’s Supper as a continuation of Jesus’ Last Supper. The story of the Last Supper, which is the story about the institution of the ecclesiastical communal meal, rather originated secondarily in explanation of the existence of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.”

Originally the Lord’s Supper was celebrated as a full meal within the framework of the Sunday evening gathering. In the second half of the second century, the Eucharist, in a more modest form was introduced into the morning gatherings on several days of the week, including on Sunday. This development resulted in the morning ceremony being regarded as the real sacrament while the Sunday Supper gradually ceased to be considered Eucharistic and as such became a charity meal for the less well-off members of the community.”

In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.” This change the Catholic Church has called transubstantiation.

From that day, all priests, by the decree of the Council of Trent, became miracle workers!

Evolution of Catholic Priesthood – Part 2

Priest: The miracle performer

The most striking thing about priests, in the later history of Christianity, is their supposed ability to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The words of the priest impersonating Jesus at the Last Supper ‘This is MY body…This is the cup of My blood’ miraculously changes every bit of bread and every drop of wine into the REAL body and blood of Jesus. The only person on earth who can do this is a priest; he can perform this miracle before a congregation of believers, or he can do it all by himself.

The power to effect this transubstantiation is given to the priest through the sacrament of ordination. It cannot be taken away from him except by death. Like cattle branding, he is ‘branded’ forever. He is ordained as a ‘priest forever’ in the line of Melchizedek, whose “priesthood had no beginning and no end.” A priest may be defrocked, convicted of crimes, and imprisoned; he still retains the ‘imprint’ of the branding. Church authorities can ban him from performing priestly functions, but they cannot take away his ‘priesthood’. “He is a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.”

Before we come to the question “Who is Melchizedek?”, let us briefly deal with an issue related to transubstantiation: after the wafer (bread) has become the body of  Jesus, is there a second miracle, whereby it had to be ‘de-consecrated’ before it became excretion? Is there a ‘reverse transubstantiation’ to separate Jesus from the bread and wine during the wafer’s travel through the digestive system to the toilet bowl? There should be, for otherwise poor Jesus will repeatedly be flushed down the toilet! 

Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, used Aristotelian philosophical arguments to explain the Eucharistic miracle. He made a distinction between ‘substance’ (essence) and ‘accident’ (what accompanies). The substance “dog” is not dependent on whether the dog is white or black, tall or short, small or large. These are all accidents which do not affect the substance of ‘dog’. Although, Aristotle distinguished between ‘substance’ and ‘accident’, he could not separate them. There cannot be a ‘black’ or ‘white’ standing alone without the ‘substance’. It must be a ‘black’ something (its essence). However, in the case of the Eucharist, Aquinas posited a miraculous disruption of the natural order. He claimed that a ‘substance’ can exist without its ‘accidents’ and vice versa. This miracle is performed by God every time the priest says the words of consecration. “The substance of Christ’s body is in the Eucharist without that body’s accidents and the accidents of bread can exist without its proper substance." The Eucharist host looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, but it is not bread! This is currently the official position of the Church. There you are: if this is the case, be happy that you are not flushing Jesus down the toilet, but rather only the 'accidents' of bread; he safely gets back to heaven!

There were other theories as well. Augustine of Hippo, a famous theologian of the early Church, did not believe in the ‘real presence’ of Jesus in the Eucharist. What is changed, according to Augustine, is not the bread given out but the believers receiving it.

Evolution of Catholic Priesthood – Part 1

The priestless period following Jesus’ death

Garry Wills, who was once a Jesuit seminarian, is a prolific writer on matters related to Religion. In the introduction to his book Why priests? A Failed Tradition, he starts with a few questions:

1.   Why did Priesthood come into the Christian religion that began without it and, indeed, opposed it?

2.   Would Christianity have been better off without priests?

3.   Why was it felt that priests were required after the initial period following the death Jesus during which there were no priests?

4.   Without the priesthood, would there have been belief in (a) an apostolic tradition (b) the real presence in the Eucharist (c) the sacrificial interpretation of the mass and (d) the ransom theory of redemption?

In this book, he argues that the answer to question (4) is “there would not have been.” In fact, Christianity “stood without the priesthood at the outset and it can stand stronger without it now.” He further argues that priesthood “keeps Catholics at a remove from other Christians – and at a remove from the Jesus of the Gospels, who was a biting critic of the priests of his day.”

As discussed in some of my earlier blogs, Christianity as a religion did not exist during the life of Jesus. He was not its founder. He only started a movement termed by some as ‘Jesus Movement’ that aimed to bring the Jewish people closer to Yahweh. In fact, there was no “Church”, as we have today during the times following Jesus’ death. There were “gatherings” (ekklesiae, which meant “house gatherings”) where the followers of Jesus (called “Housefellows”, oikeioi,) met. In these gatherings, there were no priests; only “charisms” - activities inspired by the Holy Spirit. There were at least 16 of them. The following are some: Prophesizing, working miracles, Speaking in tongues, Exorcism, Healing, Almsgiving and Shepherding.

The principal activity during the “house gathering” was a communal meal in which memories of Jesus were shared. These memories would in time accumulate into the Gospels. During these communal gatherings, the community prayed, sang hymns, and baptized newcomers into their company. There was no “consecration” done (as is happening during mass these days) that changed food into anything other than a sign of shared fellowship.

Since there were no “Christians” during those times, how did believers in Jesus identify themselves to one another? They called themselves “followers”, akolouthontes, or they were called “learners”, mathetai, normally translated as “disciples”. All the followers of Jesus were either “followers’ or “learners”. Whether followers or learners, none is put above another. Paul has other terms for his fellow believers – Brothers (Adelphoi) and Sisters (Adelphai), and Housefellows (Oikeioi). It is clear from these designations that the communities were egalitarian, not authoritarian or hierarchical. This egalitarian spirit came from Christ himself, who said that none of his “followers” should try to be above another. “If anyone wishes to be first, he will be last of all and the servant of all.” (Mk 9. 33-37) “You must not be like the Sadducees and the Pharisees who seek the ‘first places’ and like to be called ‘Rabbi’. Do not address any man on earth as father, since you have only one Father, and He is in heaven”. (Mt 23. 5-12)

What could be more against this teaching than priests who want to be called “Father” and popes who adopt the title “Holy Father”?

Any purely charismatic movement starts with the ideal of sharing everything equally. In the course of time, however, people are delegated to administrative roles. A similar transformation took place with the 'Jesus Movement' after the death of Jesus. There appeared people in administrative roles – Servants, Elders, Overseers. These are not charisms bestowed by the Spirit, but offices to which people were appointed by their fellow followers. Notice that ‘Priesthood’ is missing from the list.

Servants (diakonoi), usually translated ‘deacons.’

Elders (presbyteroi) were, among other things, liaisons for congregations to keep in contact with each other. They are the heads of various household churches of the area.

Overseers (episkopoi), usually translated as ‘bishops.’ The qualifications of an episkopos are entirely moral; they are appointed and monitored by their fellows and can be removed by them. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes in detail the quality traits that an overseer must have, e.g., should be beyond criticism, the husband of one wife, sober, disciplined, approachable, able to teach, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, a good manager of his home, commanding the respect of his children, etc. (1 Tim 3. 1-7)

As one can see, there is a wide variety of charisms, functions, and tasks referred to in the New Testament. “If the priesthood existed then, would it not have been included in this exhaustive list, or at least referred to?” asks Wills. Jesus never refers to his Followers or Learners as priests. Paul never calls himself or any of his co-workers a priest. Even Peter does not call himself a priest, much less a bishop, but only a ‘fellow Elder’.

In addition, there is no mention of the acts we associate with priesthood – no hearing of confessions, no giving last rites, no marrying, no confirmation, no consecrating of the Eucharist.

How, then, did it happen that Jesus’ instruction not to address any man as ‘father’, since there is only one ‘Father’ who is in heaven, has been ignored by later priests and laity? This happened when “a certain class in the church became Holy Men. And why did they become Holy Men? Because they had by then acquired the unique power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ”.