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”.