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”.