Our Protestant brethren are sometimes critical of the Catholic priesthood, pointing to passages in the New Testament that describe Christians in general as a “royal priesthood” or “a kingdom of priests.”
This leads to the concept frequently referred to in Protestant circles as “the priesthood of all believers.”
What is often unrecognized is that the relevant New Testament passages are quotations from Old Testament passages that refer to the Israelites in just the same way.
So if in the Old Testament there was a “priesthood of all Israelites” alongside a ministerial priesthood possessed by only some Israelites then in the New Testament there can be a “common priesthood” (to use a Catholic term for it) that exists alongside the ministerial priesthood exercised by Christ’s ordained ministers.
For it’s part, the Catholic Church acknowledges the universal priesthood of all Christians.
For example, in one of his general audiences, Pope John Paul II commented on one of the universal priesthood passages in the book of Revelation and remarked:
As [the Lamb] has been “slain”, he is able to “ransom” (ibid.) men and women coming from the most varied origins.
The Greek word used does not explicitly refer us to the history of the Exodus, where “ransoming” the Israelites is never spoken of; however, the continuation of the phrase makes a clear reference to the well-known promise made by God to the Israelites of Sinai: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19: 6).
This promise has now become a reality: the Lamb has truly established for God “a kingdom and priests… who shall reign on earth” (cf. Rv 5: 10).
The door of this kingdom is open to all humanity, called to form the community of the children of God, as St Peter reminds us: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God”s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (I Pt 2: 9).
The Second Vatican Council explicitly refers to these texts of the First Letter of Peter and of the Book of Revelation when, referring to the “common priesthood” that belongs to all the faithful, it points out the components to enable them to carry it out.
“The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist. They exercise that priesthood, too, by the reception of the sacraments, prayer and thanksgiving, the witness of a holy life, abnegation and active charity (Lumen Gentium, n. 10) [General Audience of Nov. 3, 2004].
So it isn’t a question of whether there is a common priesthood shared by all Christians.
There is.
The question is whether the existence of this priesthood excludes another, ministerial priesthood.
As shown by the parallel Old Testament priesthoods, it doesn’t.
The question is not whether the existence of the pristhood of believers excludes the ministerial priesthood. The question is: does the New Testament teach that Christ´s ministers are priests in a special sense? What is the nature of Christian ordained ministry? The answer is that we cannot find anywhere in the New Testament such a doctrine (of the ministerial pristhood). The apostolic fathers testifies to its inexistence in early Christianity. I think it was Cyprian of Carthage who start this “sacerdotalism” in the conception of Christian ministry. And then it became common to all Church Fathers to refer to the ministers as “priests”. But it is an improper word, and inadequate. In the epistle to Hebrews, we see that the ministerial pristhood of Jews has been abolished, and it is very strange that the author of Hebrews doesn´t say a word about a ministerial priesthood in New Testament. Where the New Testament commands the offering of sacrifices, it is directed to all Christians; and where it describes the functions of the ministers, it is always about teaching, governing and administering the sacraments.
“The question is: does the New Testament teach that Christ´s ministers are priests in a special sense? The answer is that we cannot find anywhere in the New Testament such a doctrine (of the ministerial pristhood).” Ricado, you cannot find it because you refuse to see it. James 5:14 says “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” The original Greek is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) which is where the word priest comes from. Acts 14:23 is another of the many verses where you can find reference to an ordained priesthood in the New Testament: “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” The same word, πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) is found in the original Greek.The original question was whether there is a distinction between the common priesthood of Christians and a subset of those Christians who are also ordained to a special priesthood. The New Testament shows there is a distinction. Sadly, as long as you cling to the unbiblical fantasy of Luther that pretends everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves, you’ll simply ignore what you don’t already believe and say “you cannot find anywhere in the New Testament such a doctrine.”You might as well, following Luther’s lead, say whatever part of the Bible that refutes your claims should be ignored or thrown to the fire as Luther did with James for pointing out that the only place in Scriptures where the phrase “faith alone” appears refutes Luther’s doctrine on it “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24
@BlaisePaul
Right on. I remember when I first started reading the Bible with an open mind to the Catholic Church. Things I had previously just read over paying no attention started springing out. I started thinking “could the Catholic Church actually be true?” It was amazing
@BlaisePaul As far as the straight etymology goes, πρεσβυτερος simply means “elder.” While it is the root of “priest,” we cannot push this line of reasoning too far. “Senator,” which is both Latin and English, is derived from “senex,” meaning “old man.” Clearly this is no longer the sense of the English derivative. More persuasive is that the Vulgate does not translate the Greek word as “senex,” but instead employs a simple transliteration, “presbyteros.” Given that Latin had a perfectly good word for “elder” in “senex” and a perfectly good word for “priest” in “pontifex,” we have to ask why St. Jerome used neither, but opted for the transliteration.
Magister Christianus,
I think that the answer might be that pontifex *wasn’t* a perfectly good word for priest. Roman “pontifexes” were more like bishops in their role and authority, and in fact when Jerome was translating, the bishops were often called “Pontifex” and the pope “Pontifex Maximus.” This makes pontifex a poor fit for the “elders” of the new testament. But by not using “senex” either, he demonstrates that πρεσβυτερος did not simply mean elder to him. It meant something that Latin had so inadequate a fit, he transliterated the Greek word instead.
Bear in mind, too, that St. Jerome did not <i>invent</i> the Latin terminology of the Church; that had been developing since the time of St. Peter. Latin borrowed words from Greek incessantly. We may be sure that the Latin-speaking part of the Church had borrowed the word <i>presbyterus</i> from Greek before St. Jerome’s translation of the Bible. <i>Sacerdos</i> itself is a native Latin word corresponding to Greek
ἱερεύς, but evidently there was no native Latin word corresponding to the ecclesial meaning of πρεσβύτερος.
Since the word “priest” in the local parish really means, “presbyter,” this is a false dichotomy. The presbyteros (parish priests) minister to the sacerdos (priesthood of all believer priests).
Too often, the Protestant detractors show themselves unwilling to study etymology!
“The faithful indeed, by virtue of their royal priesthood, participate in the offering of the Eucharist.”
Our faith and Church are highly incarnational. The existence of the common priesthood doesn’t exlude the ministerial priesthood, but is created or incarnated by it. The common priesthood is created, through their participation and assistance in the ministerial priesthoods’ Sacrifice of the Mass and consecration of the Eucharist.
If I understand this correctly, it seems certain to me that those who proclaim faith but exclude themselves from or reject the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood could also not properly identify themselves as part of the common priesthood yet?
That makes all the sense in the world to me, by partaking in the sacraments and sharing the Gospel we are the “royal priesthood,” the children of God but the clear distinction is that only an “ordained male priest” is the one able to administer the sacraments and give the Holy Mass.
BlaisePaul,
The english word “priest” come from “presbyter”, but it is irrelevant. In the original greek (and also in my language, portuguese, I´m from Brazil) there is no connection between “presbyter” (elder) and “sacerdos”. You can confirm that seeing that the presbyters NEVER are described as “offering sacrifices for the people”, or having the “offering of sacrifices” as their principal function. The author of Hebrews certainly would tell us that, because he says that the ministerial priesthood of Jews was abolished, but only puts in their place the priesthood of Jesus and of people (telling all Christians to “offer sacrifices in His name”). You are saying that the New Testament clearly show a distinction. I acknowlege this distinction between an ordained ministry and the people. But the NATURE of that ministry is not of priesthood, but of teaching, governing and administering the sacraments.