To our experts: Priesthood and St Mary's (Priesthood Discussion)

Peter,

The following is how I understand that Cyprian favoured the election of bishops. I'm not sure but I believe that the present practice of three bishops to ordain a new bishop comes to us from this, but it wasn't to make sure of the apostolic succession, but to ensure the orthodoxy of the new bishop. These days, with appointments coming from Rome it doesn't mean much.

Apart from Cyprian's own work on "the Unity of the Catholic Church" there is also a good commentary on Cyprian and his writings by Peter Hinchcliff.

SINCE I AM NO EXPERT, THIS IS A SHORT COMMENT ON CYPRIAN IN THE MEANTIME.

After Bishop Donatus of Carthage died, Cyprian was elected in his place, in 248. He was often heard to say that a bishop ought to be chosen by the vote of his fellow bishops [of his own province] the consent of the laity and a majority of the clergy, and the judgment of God.

What he meant by the last is open to speculation. Cyprian believed in the significance of dreams, or perhaps there could have been an ecstatic utterance by a recognised prophet, for prophets were still known to African Christians of this period.

Eusebius - The History of the Church [VI,29] - tells the story of the election of Pope Fabian in 236. Fabian was with a party visiting Rome from the country, and was present at the assembly to elect a new pope. Nobody took any notice of him until, suddenly, a dove flew down and perched on his head, "plainly following the example of the descent upon the Saviour of the Holy Spirit". Fabian was immediately elected by unanimous public acclamation.

PatrickW

Experts are the last to get up on their hind legs in such matters. So I’ll jump in.

One of the difficulties for us ordinary folks ... is the theology of priesthood.

The official theology is essentially sketched down the line a few days at ‘Chew the fat’ and emanates from very recent statements of him who just caught a plane. [see the reference a little further ahead.)

What is the relationship, if any, between valid ordination and call/acceptance by the community?

This is a matter merely of legal definitions. You would know, surely, Peter, that ‘valid’ means ‘it works’, and ‘invalid’: it doesn’t. The currently ‘ordained women priests’ are, in Rome’s eyes, ‘invalidly’ ordained and are not, repeat, not priests: the ritual didn’t work.

On the other hand, the once excommunicated bishops of the Lefebvrist movement were ‘validly’ ordained but ‘illicitly’(by an illegal process).

On the other hand, the earlier experience of church order (say, 90 CE) relied on local expertise instead of on predictably trained candidates (e. g., 25 year-old seminary students). Yes, they knew whom they respected and wanted, and ‘called’ them.

A lot of Protestant churches still ‘call’ their pastors from among candidates who are, however, already ordained or commissioned.

The current RC system where I live of ‘appointment for six years’ and 0f then moving on that person willy-nilly so far as he is concerned and willy-nilly so far as the congregation is concerned is unhealthy and unchurchly.

I think it was St Cyprian who said that no community should have a bishop whom they do not want. Is there any support theologically for this view? (Who was that who just caught a plane?) [Love this bit so much I couldn’t cut it.]

Patrick has done a good job here. And the dove on Fabian is typical: no true Roman (and I don’t mean Catholic) could resist a good omen.

I have a problem with the sacramental character being planted on it [the soul]: What is the theological teaching re the sacrament of ordination for non-Greeks? [Gee, another bit I love.]

No wonder. JPII was crazy about it (do a word count in his writings of the term ‘ontological’). But he fell back on this because he never got past scholastic jargon in his theological education. (The Gregorian would not accept him as a doctoral candidate because of something lacking in his Polish qualifications: mind you, he worked under difficulties in those years, but medievalism is about all he got. Like me, twenty years later.)

Discussing ‘character’ many years ago with John Todd (the publisher of The Jerusalem Bible, among other coups), he just said, ‘I don’t believe in that. To me ordination is just a licence.’

That is about my view too after much consideration of early Christian ministry. Yes, some people have it and are the kind we want. They’ve got it. Character, I mean. So ‘ordain’ or ‘commission’ them. That’s it.

It's interesting that earlier today I was reading the section of Paul Collins' book "Believers" where he has some things to say on this subject that might be of relevance to this discussion. In this part of the book Paul Collins is discussing the general question of the shortage of priests and the way Pastoral Associates are having to take over much of the work of priests in many places across Australia. In this part I'm quoting his focus is on the specific question of the qualification for Ministry and quotes two theologians. John N Collins (no relation to Paul) and Edward Schillebeeckx are two of the "experts" Paul turns to for a view...

Part of the difficulty in identifying PAs (Pastoral Associates) arises from the ambiguity that surrounds the use of the word 'ministry'. Despite the fact that almost everyone nowadays with some theological education talks about Christians having a 'ministry', church officials are wary about the word and usually only apply it to ordained ministry. Bishops, priests and deacons have a 'ministry'; the best laypeople can hope for is an 'apostolate'.

In Greek the word is diakonia, meaning both ministry and service. It is common in the New Testament. The problem is that within Catholicism since Vatican II the meaning of the word has been over-extended and the term itself overused. Listening to some people nowadays you would think that everybody in the church has a 'ministry', from the pope to the humblest member. What has happened is the word has been used as though everything that the Christian did, whether it was within the context of the church or not, was 'ministry'. In other words 'ministry' is evacuated of all meaning. Further confusion has arisen because in common parlance we have lost the distinction between discipleship and ministry. Every baptised person is a disciple of Jesus and has a general mission to serve others and proclaim their faith in the risen Christ, but that is not the same as being a minister. In the New Testament the word 'ministry' has a more specific meaning.

Australian theologian John N Collins in a detailed study has established the meaning of the term diakonia in the New Testament[19]. For Collins being a disciple is not the same as a minister, and he maintains that far too much emphasis has been placed on the notion of ministry as humble and lowly service to others. Part of the problem is that we read back into and impose upon the New Testament our contemporary interest in social welfare activities and care for the poorest. Collins says that being a minister in the New Testament's understanding meant that a person was called by God and the church to a public role in the proclamation of the gospel and celebration of the sacraments and that the role didn't necessarily imply a menial or lowly status. In fact it might even denote a person of significance, just as we use the word 'minister' today to denote someone of cabinet rank. In the early church people acting as ministers were not only officially appointed, but were subject to accountability and oversight. So when asked 'Are all Christians ministers?' Collins unequivocally answers 'No.'[20]

Some are critical of Collins' views on ministry because he clearly disagrees with the popular and widespread interpretation of ministry in progressive church parlance where everyone is a 'minister'. He limits the word to those individuals called to specific ministries. At first sight it seems that Collins is supportive of an almost hierarchical understanding of ministry in contrast to those at the more Protestant end of the spectrum who argue that baptism qualifies all Christians for ministry. Such an interpretation is to misunderstand Collins completely. Essentially he is arguing for a more exact use of the word to apply where the minister, whether man or woman, is called and commissioned by God through the church and the community to carry out a specific task which often has leadership or educational implications.

The context of ministry is always the church community. The minister is called to serve the community or to go out as a representative from it. It is the community that is basic and all Christian ministry is a service to it or an expression of it. The church is grounded in a community of equal disciples all of whom have the potentiality to be called to ministry. Ordination in the early church was specifically aligned to the community. That is a person was called and ordained to serve this community. That made sense in small urban communities in the late Roman world or in the early medieval world where travel was less common. To some extent this practise survives with diocesan priests tied through incardination to their diocese, but the problem is that theologically the emphasis nowadays is on that aspect of ordination which separates the ordained man from the community. It is seen as something 'absolute', something that ontologically changes the inner self of the ordinand. 'Once a priest, always a priest', as the saying goes.

Edward Schillebeeckx has shown that absolute ordination is contrary to the practise of the New Testament and the early church, which saw this sacrament as intimately related to the service of a particular community. This reveals the anomaly of moving priests around the world, usually from Africa and Asia to work in places where there is a so-called shortage of priests. As Schillebeeckx argues, there are always leaders and ministers already available, both men and women, but because of their blinkers about 'absolute' ordination and the requirement of celibacy the papacy and many of the bishops won't recognise them. Schillebeeckx doesn't mince matters: 'According to the views of the ancient church a shortage of priests was an ecclesiastical impossibility. The modern so-called shortage of priests therefore stands to be criticised in the light of the ancient church's view ... because the modern shortage has causes which stem from outside the ministry'; that is requirements like celibacy, seminary formation apart from the local community, and male gender issues.[21] The problem is not the Spirit of God who constantly raises up leaders for the local church, but obstacles falsely imposed by church law in the process of clericalising the ministry.

So what does all of this have to do with PAs? It means that the Holy Spirit has already provided leadership for the church which simply needs to be recognised, formed and commissioned. A PA in a parish has a specific and official task and this person is, in a proper theological sense, a minister and leader. PAs are not just lay replacements for the priest shortage, but Catholics with clear, specific and commissioned tasks. [Emphasis added]

[19] John N Collins, Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 and Are All Christians Ministers?, Sydney: EJ Dwyer and David Lovell, 1992. Although I have known John for many years, he is not a relation.
[20]Collins, Are All Christians Ministers? p1
[21]Schillebeeckx, Ministry, pp72-73

I think Paul Collins puts forward a powerful argument that the so-called "crisis" in Catholicism in this country is largely artificial and as much a product of recent mismanagement of the institution by the papal leadership of the last two centuries as much as it has been created by forces external to the church. If we could somehow shake this "clerical culture" and get back to the original vision of what priesthood and episcopal leadership was perceived to be in the early church we would not have a crisis. This was not some "free-for-all" — the people chosen to lead did need qualifications. They were just different kinds of qualifications to those that developed under the clerical culture. That entire Chapter of Paul's book, Chapter 5, How Should the Church Respond? is well worth studying.

Paul Collins, Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?, UNSWPress. 2008 pp131-133

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

Thanks very much for the discussion.

It seems that ideally we would have choice of candidates from the community and the chosen candidate be given a licence to pratise by the bishop.

Peter Kennedy seems to have lost his licence - or be in danger of losing it. It's a bit hard to follow the issue from a distance. Likewise he seems to have lost sight of the fact that he needed a licence.

As I recall, Bishop Fritz Lobinger, in Teams of Elders proposed that the isolated community would choose a group who would be ordained by the bishop for limited tenure as priests. A number of them would always concelebrate Eucharist.

I meant to raise the "ontological" change theory of +JP2. Did +B16 use the expression recently? The first time I encountered the expression I uttered an expletive. Now I simply ask the Spirit: "How do you manage that little trick?" He replies: "It's a new one on me, but I'll look it up and get back to you."

Peter