Minor Defensio Insitutionis Sacredotii - A Minor Defense on the Institution of the Priesthood

Before this article begins, I would like to make some clear statements. This is article justifying the existence of the priesthood in the early Church. Therefore, it will be focused primarily on Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sources since both branches of Christianity originate from the early Church. Because of this, this article will focus on the institution of an all-male priesthood, the very priesthood Christ instituted at the Last Supper, and in certain epistles shows the power of this ordained priesthood. This paper is not about the sacrament of Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, but rather a defense that the priesthood did exist and existed in the early Church. I will not argue on this issue of women priests since the consensus of the Early Church Fathers did not believe nor write that women were ever priests or that they received the sacrament of Holy Orders. I do understand that some argue that the Deaconess Phebe was a female who exercised the authority of Holy Orders, but again based on the writings of the Fathers, it can be viewed as deaconesses having the same amount of power as a modern nun, meaning they received no such thing as Holy Orders and had no legitimate ministry in the Church when it concerns the liturgy and priesthood. A modern document that might help understand this issue and why women could not ever be ordained is the Apostolic Letter by Pope John Paul II called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on May 22nd, AD 1994. However, this article is not focusing on that issue, it is focusing on the institution of the priesthood.

Was the priesthood of the clergy instituted by Christ and has that priesthood existed since the time of Christ? This is the question that this article hopes to answer. Focusing on a point of view that the priesthood of the clergy, that is, men ordained to the service of God and the Church, existed from the time of Christ, and was instituted by Him. This essay will hopefully answer this question as we start in Scripture and work through some of the answers throughout the early centuries of the Church.

Starting with a Biblical perspective, we must go back to the Old Testament. It is known that in the Old Covenant and Old Testament, there was a priesthood established by God called the Levitical Priesthood or the Priesthood of the Levites. The sons of Levi of the tribe of Levi were priests ordained by God to carry out the temple functions and sacrifices. This started with Aaron, brother of Moses (Exodus 28:1-3). When Christ came into the world, there was the priesthood of Christ. This priesthood was called the priesthood of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was a priestly king in the Old Testament, a priest of the Most High God, who had no recorded birth or death. There was no record of his parents (Genesis 14:18). St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews writes about Melchizedek, “Without father or mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but liken unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever” (Hebrews 7:3). Now, a distinction should be made. Melchizedek was not a Levite, yet still respected as a valid priest of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are two priesthoods as stated in Scripture. Not trying to negate the priesthood of the faithful sometimes called believers as mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9. The Levitical Priesthood which died with the Old Covenant and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, or the Priesthood of Jesus Christ in the Order of Melchizedek. The same priesthood that King David was a part of and set apart from the Levitical priesthood as found in the Book of Psalms, “The LORD hath sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest forever in the order of Melchisedech” (Psalm 110:4). Now, although Melchizedek and King David were priests in the Old Testament, it doesn’t negate the New Testament priesthood. Christ’s coming was the changing of the law, and so there wasn’t a formal change in the Old Testament priesthood until then. St. Paul once again addresses this in his letter to the Hebrews, “If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law” (Hebrews 7:11-12). Christ has fulfilled the Old Law and ushered in the New Law with His Church and therefore established a priesthood in His Church. In doing this in a sense Christ made the priesthood Melchizedek “alive” again. He changed the priesthood by changing the law and instituted the Order of Melchizedek as the eternal priesthood.

By distinguishing between the Levitical Priesthood and the Priesthood of the Order of Melchizedek, it can be turned to the institution of the priesthood and three key powers directly addressed to this priestly and apostolic ministry. At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ institutes the priesthood and the Holy Eucharist in the words, “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). In these words, Christ looked back to what Moses did upon Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:8) in establishing the Mosaic Covenant. Christ is doing this in showing how He is the sacrifice for the New Covenant to be ushered in and that through every priest they will re-actualize this sacrifice until the second coming of Christ at the consummation of the world as a reference by St. Paul, “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer” (Hebrews 8:3). This was a command given directly to all the Apostles who were men and since these men wouldn’t live forever, this ministry, this priesthood would have to be passed down. The same thing with the retaining and non-retaining of sins (John 20:23) and the baptism of others (Matthew 28:19). All these powers were given directly to the Apostles gradually over time until the fulfillment of their priestly duties came about at Pentecost when they received the Holy Ghost. These powers are also commonly referred to as the threefold ministry to sanctify, to teach, and to govern. This is in relation to Christ as priest (Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 4:14), prophet (Luke 13:33, Acts 3:22-23), and king (1 Timothy 6:15, Apocalypse/Revelation 17:14). Christ being a priest is in relation to the priest as sanctifier. Christ being a prophet is in relation to the priest being a teacher. Christ being a king is in relation to the priest being a governor.

From that we see again St. Paul talk about a priestly vocation in stating, “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1). St. Paul gives way that certain people, particularly men since he uses the word “brethren” are a part of a priestly ministry, a priestly vocation that others did not have. Some might object to the use of “brethren” in a way that promotes an all-male priesthood. According to Stong’s Concordance, the word used is adelphos. This is a masculine noun that means “a brother” in the male sense of the word. Therefore, St. Paul is only referring to men here. Not only in the English translation but in the original Greek as well.

In closing, the office of Bishop and the diaconate are the final points to touch on for a biblical justification for the existence of the priesthood. It can be seen very clearly that a ministry, that of overseer in most translations and bishop in others is established in scripture from an early stage, and since St. Paul refers to something that is already happening and is giving instructions for how the office of overseer/bishop should be selected, elected, and given. Therefore, the office of Bishop is a ministerial priesthood apart from that of the common faithful. St. Paul writes, “A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1) gives way to knowing that bishops existed in the apostolic age as well as the ministry of deacons, “Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre” (1 Timothy 3:8). Both the office of Bishops and the ministry of Deacons should be the husband of one wife, which indicates again an all-male priesthood. We know they don’t have to be married because most bishops were not married in the early Church (there is no record that St. Timothy was ever married) but took on what St. Paul did and wrote about being celibate in ministry and dedicating it all to the ministry of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

In the last five paragraphs, verses from the Bible were taken to justify a biblical basis for the priesthood as ultimately being instituted by Christ. In the following paragraphs, this article will look at the earliest fathers of Church history.

The next two pieces of evidence will be analyzed, using Philip Schaff’s volume one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Philip Schaff (AD 1819 to AD 1893) was a Protestant theologian and ecclesiastical historian. He was a churchman of the German Reformed Church. The volume I am using is no longer in print (First Printed in 1994 by Hendrickson Publishing), although various other works can be found online and through more modern writers. Philip Schaff originally released this through Christian Literature Publishing Company in 1895. Philip Schaff was a traditional Protestant and therefore the work selected comes from him to both honor Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but also to offer a more traditional Protestant observance.

The first one is from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, dated around AD 68 to AD 96 to the Church at Corinth. The Epistle or Letter is commonly attributed to have been written by St. Clement himself, unlike his second epistle. This first epistle was even a matter of canonical debate. A debate that almost put this epistle into the canon of Scripture. When it comes to the priesthood, St. Clement writes, “Our apostles, also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these shall fall asleep, other approved men would succeed them in their ministry” (Part of Chapter XLIV/44 - The Ordinances of the Apostles, that there might be no Contention Respecting the Priestly Office). In this short quote we see that the Apostles had planned that when they died, there would be others who would succeed them in the episcopate and among other ministers in the faith. St. Clement in particular was a successor of St. Peter in Rome, he was ordained and consecrated by St. Peter. However, if the early date is true, then Clement wrote this while only a bishop, if the latter is true, he wrote it as the Bishop of Rome. Either way, it points to a successive episcopacy and priesthood of clergy distinct from that of the faithful. Therefore, we have St. Clement who lived during the Apostolic Age, who also followed St. Paul giving a short instruction on what the Apostles had instructed on what to do when they died. St. Clement is believed to be the same Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians when it states, “And I entreat thee also, my sincere companion, help those women who have laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement and the rest of my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life” (Philippians 4:3).

To clear something up quickly to those who may wonder, the Apostolic Age refers to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry somewhere between AD 27 to AD 30 to the close of the age which is AD 100 and usually marked as the death of the last Apostle, that being St. John, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus Christ.

The second piece of evidence from Philip Schaff’s volume is found in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. The dating of this epistle is unknown but was probably written after AD 100 to the Church at Smyrna closer to the death of St. Ignatius. St. Ignatius states, “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected to the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop to either baptize or to celebrate the love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secured and valid” (Chapter VII/8 - Let Nothing be Done Without the Bishop). In this evidence from St. Ignatius, we see a set episcopacy, members of the clergy, and deacons in the early 2nd century. The bishop usually presided over the Eucharistic liturgy as was commanded to the Holy Apostles in Sacred Scripture (Luke 22:19). We see this also extended to presbyters or clergymen who are appointed by the bishop to preside at such liturgies as the Eucharist. However, it states that the clergy and the deacons must be united to the bishop as well as the faithful. Creating a distinction and a clear hierarchy in the early Church. Not only providing evidence of a priesthood, but a Church hierarchy, and an established Church that by historical records at this time points out to what was called the Catholic Church. The bishop in the early Church had the final say in matters pertaining to his local Church or called diocese. Everything was done through the bishop and his orders so that what might be done might be secure and valid.

The final pieces of evidence will be intertwined to a degree. These next two sources will be from a modern look at the priesthood and the steps towards ordination mentioned in the early Church. The third source is Priestly Holiness by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the fourth and final source is from the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles also called, Apostolic Constitutions by James Donaldson, D.D.

Archbishop Lefebvre (AD 1905 to AD 1991) was a traditionalist French Catholic Archbishop and theologian who was at one time the Superior General for the Holy Ghost Fathers in Africa and the founder of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. He was a Council Father at the Second Vatican Council and was a council father. He was very vocal throughout the 1960s until his death. Although ordaining thousands of priests and a few bishops, he is most notably famous for the 1988 consecrations of four Bishops named Bishop Williamson, Bishop Galaretta, Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Mallerais. A short excerpt from his summa on the priesthood is being used in this paper. Priestly Holiness is a posthumous book released in 2008, 17 years after the death of the Archbishop.

James Donaldson D.D. (1831-1915) was a Scottish classical scholar, educational and theological writer. He received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from the University of Aberdeen in acknowledgment of his works on Church History. He was knighted by King Edward VII in 1907 and most notably served as the principal of the University of St Andrews where he was from 1886 until his death in 1915. His work on the Apostolic Constitutions was published in 1886. The Apostolic Constitutions themselves however are attributed to have been written during the apostolic age by St. Clement of Rome. It was compiled anonymously in AD 390.

In Priestly Holiness, Archbishop Lefebvre starts by stating, “Already in the 3rd century, in the year 251, Pope St. Cornelius lists out the different orders: priests, deacons subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors and porters. Then he gives the number of those about to be ordained in his diocese, in the diocese of Rome. We are justified in thinking that Pope St. Cornelius was not the first one to confer these ordinations and distinguish these minor and major orders. For there already to be such a large number in the diocese of Rome, we can assume that these orders had existed at least for several decades, if not for a hundred years before, which brings us practically back to the apostolic age.” The Archbishop explains that these were orders already being conferred in the Church and were done by the Bishop of Rome for example. It would be wrong to deny historical evidence based on one’s own opinions that these orders did not exist already, for they did not just come into existence out of nowhere. Although the Archbishop might be a year off on the list of Pope St. Cornelius, however, it is still certain that they existed in the Early Church and further evidence can be produced from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Minor Orders which from this same Pope is given a further explanation on minor orders in a famous letter to Fabian of Antioch that is recorded in the writings of the church historian named Eusebius.

Continuing with Priestly Holiness, Archbishop Lefebvre references the Apostolic Constitutions by stating, “Those Apostolic Constitutions speak of minor orders: they speak of porters, of exorcists, of lectors, of ministers. There is no explicit mention of acolytes, but we can probably consider that those called “ministers” are acolytes and subdeacons.” Archbishop Lefebvre points this out because these are the very orders that Catholic seminarians are admitted to as they go through seminary. He shows that what is currently practiced has its findings in Apostolic origins. The orders that are conferred on the seminarians today are the same orders as those conferred in Apostolic times as written by St. Clement. This flows right into Book VIII (8) of the Apostolic Constitutions by Donaldson. Since the constitutions deal with long forms and prayers, in this paper, they won’t be quoted, but rather listed in what order there was. In Section III of this Book, it gives the ordinations and duties of the clergy. In order, the listed ordinations from the Constitutions (excluding the office of bishop) were the ordinations of presbyters (clergy), deacons, subdeacons, readers/lectors, exorcists, and porters. The Constitutions in the same book VIII in Canon XXVIII (28) explains that the office of bishop, clergy, and diaconate, resembles the modern-day admittance to major orders which is called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. However, the subdeaconate and down, being the minor orders, are the steps taken to prepare for admittance to Holy Orders and ordination to the priesthood. This is almost identical to the same structure it is today in receiving the priesthood as mentioned by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Priestly Holiness. Therefore, not only do we see an establishment of the priesthood from the apostolic age, but a series of orders that one must go through before being ordained. Almost the same as what is still the process today.

In Conclusion, it can be seen from scripture that Christ most certainly appointed men, who were His Apostles, His disciples who carried out a priestly ministry. This ministry was distinct from the priesthood of the faithful. This priesthood was instituted by Christ and through the succession of bishops appointed by the Apostles, the mission of the faith has been handed down throughout the ages. These bishops in turn ordained men to become presbyters or priests while also having deacons. It later progresses throughout the first apostolic age to a degree of orders that leads to ordination. We see this priesthood and this degree of orders proceeding through the ages and it is still in practice today. It can be said with great certainty that Christ Himself instituted the priesthood, and that same priesthood still exists today.