Eastern Catholic Priesthood

[notredame_999]

When Latin Catholics defend celibacy in the priesthood they often cite that the meaning of the priesthood is alter christus- another Christ. Their reasoning is that by giving up a family and the marital act they are suffering just as Christ instructs them to. What is the eastern response to this?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Eastern response is that celibacy is for monks and those priests who choose celibacy. The East doesn’t look at the priest so much as “alter Christus,” rather it is the deacon who is “alter Christus” (cf. Fr. John Behr’s talk at Orientale Lumen XIV). One could also argue that in the East the bishop is “alter Christus” with the priests functioning as the bishop’s “right hand men.”

 

[gmcbroom]

Deacon,really? This may sound silly but I have to ask why?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s a good question. I’ll have to listen to the talk that I heard it from and get back to you.

 

[Diak]

A good and concise discussion of celibacy in the Eastern Catholic context:
thefreelibrary.com/Celibacy+in+context.+(Opinion).-a095148433
Fr. Maximos and his monastery (Holy Resurrection) are now with the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.

One aspect of the deacon being “alter Christus” is precisely from his diakonia, his service reflective of the kenotic life of our Lord. Another aspect is that it is he who is between the congregation and the High Place, in the portal between heaven and earth, the nave and the Holy of Holies. This is evocative of our Lord being the full reconciliation between humanity and divinity with His two natures. Also it is the Deacon who carries and who proclaims the Logos, the Word, as an icon of our Lord Who was the Logos incarnate.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

A good and concise discussion of celibacy in the Eastern Catholic context:
thefreelibrary.com/Celibacy+in+context.+(Opinion).-a095148433
Fr. Maximos and his monastery (Holy Resurrection) are now with the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.

One aspect of the deacon being “alter Christus” is precisely from his diakonia, his service reflective of the kenotic life of our Lord. Another aspect is that it is he who is between the congregation and the High Place, in the portal between heaven and earth, the nave and the Holy of Holies. This is evocative of our Lord being the full reconciliation between humanity and divinity with His two natures. Also it is the Deacon who carries and who proclaims the Logos, the Word, as an icon of our Lord Who was the Logos incarnate.

Diak,

Thank you for this post. I think this is pretty much what Fr. John Behr had to say at the Orientale Lumen Conference this year. I haven’t yet had the chance to go back and re-listen to his talk. I will do so today and see if he says anything that you haven’t already affirmed.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I just re-listened to Fr. John Behr’s talk, he doesn’t go into any details about the deacon being in persona Christi; he just says that that’s the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic view. He says that the deacon is in the place of Christ, the priests in the place of the college of Apostles, and the bishops in the place of God.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I just re-listened to Fr. John Behr’s talk, he doesn’t go into any details about the deacon being in persona Christi; he just says that that’s the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic view. He says that the deacon is in the place of Christ, the priests in the place of the college of Apostles, and the bishops in the place of God.

“Alter Christus” and “persona Christi” are different things.

I believe that “alter Christus” is another Christ while “persona Christi” is in the person of Christ. Deacons are called to be another Christ. Priests, at the consecration, as in the person of Christ.

 

[Madaglan]

I would think priests act in the person of Christ because as priests they offer the Sacrifice–Christ and ourselves incorporated into Christ–during the Divine Liturgy.

Bishops and priests act in the person of Christ through the forgiveness of sins.

Deacons act in the person of Christ through ministering to the sick and to widows.

I don’t see much difference between alter Christus and in persona Christi. I don’t see how they can apply to one order but not the others.

 

[twf]

Also, if Eastern priests aren’t acting “in the person of Christ”, what would become of the important theological principle that Christ is the one true high priest? Priests are priests by virtue of the fact that they share and participate in the priestly ministry of Christ, offering the sacrifice of Our Lord upon the altar. I understand that in the East priests are sometimes understood to be “icons of Christ”, which to me sounds very similar to the concept of “in the person of Christ”.

 

[Madaglan]

Also, if Eastern priests aren’t acting “in the person of Christ”, what would become of the important theological principle that Christ is the one true high priest? Priests are priests by virtue of the fact that they share and participate in the priestly ministry of Christ, offering the sacrifice of Our Lord upon the altar. I understand that in the East priests are sometimes understood to be “icons of Christ”, which to me sounds very similar to the concept of “in the person of Christ”.

Correct. I was thinking that not only priests, but all baptized Christians are icons of Christ, striving towards his likeness.

 

[5Loaves]

A good and concise discussion of celibacy in the Eastern Catholic context:
thefreelibrary.com/Celibacy+in+context.+(Opinion).-a095148433
Fr. Maximos and his monastery (Holy Resurrection) are now with the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.

I wonder if anyone took your recommendation and read this. I think Fr Maximos is a wonderful teacher. I wish he wrote more, and that they’d have more of their teachings up on Youtube.

I’ve often wondered with more married men being ordained in the Latin Church, in America at least, which has such a different understanding of celibacy from the East, whether they have turned at all to the East for any instruction for their married clergy. I somehow can’t imagine a former Methodist pastor who has now been ordained a priest in the Latin Church and his wife fasting from conjugal relations before Holy Communion and during Lent, for example when fasting from even food in either of those instances is not seriously practiced in the contemporary Latin Church except perhaps by monastics. I personally think the introduction of more married priests in the Latin Church is a mistaken idea of *economia * when the entire context in which they are operating is alien to the Latin praxis and theology, as is evident by much of the discussion here. The one place I see some real possible help is in NFP and in the Theology of the Body teachings of JPII especially as taught by Fr Tom Loya, who of course is a Byzantine, so that is in some sense turning to the East for instruction…

 

[Vico]

I would think priests act in the person of Christ because as priests they offer the Sacrifice–Christ and ourselves incorporated into Christ–during the Divine Liturgy.

Bishops and priests act in the person of Christ through the forgiveness of sins.

Deacons act in the person of Christ through ministering to the sick and to widows.

I don’t see much difference between alter Christus and in persona Christi. I don’t see how they can apply to one order but not the others.

The Orthodox may have a different concept of persona Christi Capitus than the Catholic. For the Eastern Catholic, the presbyter acting in the persona Christi Capitus is necessary for the six mysteries of confection of the Eucharist, Confession absolution, anointing of the sick, and nuptial blessing and Confirmation/Chrismation. For Orthodox and Eastern Catholic, I believe a deacon can only administer baptism in extreme circumstances.

For Latin Catholic, the deacon can be the minister of matrimony (witness) and baptism. For Latin Catholics deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, of the word and charity but not in the persona Christi Capitus.

CCEO Canon 698 (Eastern Catholic Code)
In the Divine Liturgy through the ministry of the priest acting in the person of Christ over the offering of the Church, there is perpetuated in virtue of the Holy Spirit, that which the Lord Jesus himself did at the Last Supper, who gave to the disciples His body on the Cross offered for us and his Blood poured out for us, establishing the true and mystical sacrifice, by which the bloody sacrifice of the Cross is commemorated with the action of grace, is actuated and shared by the Church both as an offering and as a communion to signify and perfect the unity of the people of God in the building up of His Body which is the Church.

 

[twf]

Correct. I was thinking that not only priests, but all baptized Christians are icons of Christ, striving towards his likeness.

Yes, I totally agree. By virtue of our participation in the Divine Sonship of Christ, we are all ‘icons of Christ.’ The priest, however, acts as a special icon of Christ the High Priest when he offers the holy oblation.

 

[LeeMozely]

Given the fact that every priest is also a deacon… first and always… is there a difference?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I just re-listened to Fr. John Behr’s talk, he doesn’t go into any details about the deacon being in persona Christi; he just says that that’s the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic view. He says that the deacon is in the place of Christ, the priests in the place of the college of Apostles, and the bishops in the place of God.

In the place of God??? Doesn’t to it for me. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. No one is in the place of God. That is, IMO, borderline blasphemy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

In the place of God??? Doesn’t to it for me. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. No one is in the place of God. That is, IMO, borderline blasphemy.

Latin Catholics say that the priest is “in persona Christi”. How is this any different from saying “in persona Dei” since Christ Jesus Himself is fully God?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Also, if Eastern priests aren’t acting “in the person of Christ”, what would become of the important theological principle that Christ is the one true high priest? Priests are priests by virtue of the fact that they share and participate in the priestly ministry of Christ, offering the sacrifice of Our Lord upon the altar. I understand that in the East priests are sometimes understood to be “icons of Christ”, which to me sounds very similar to the concept of “in the person of Christ”.

From the Eastern/Byzantine perspective, priests share in the priestly ministry of the bishop, who shares in the priestly ministry of Christ. It is for this reason that iconographically Christ the “high priest” is always depicted as adorned with bishops robes, vestments, and crown. In the East, therefore, the priest’s ministry is totally dependent on the bishop, who is the head of his particular church. This is why the priesthood is sometimes viewed as being in the place of the college of apostles, and the bishop as in the place of God. The priesthood gathers around the bishop as his advisers, but also as his ministers.

In the East it is not just the priests that are seen as icons of Christ. All the Christian faithful are icons of Christ. It is for this reason that at their baptism each of the newly-illumined are traditionally given a cross without a corpus. We, as the icons of Christ, supply the missing corpus with our very selves.

According to Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, the priest, during the Divine Liturgy, functions more “in persona populi” than “in persona Christi”.

 

[twf]

From the Eastern/Byzantine perspective, priests share in the priestly ministry of the bishop, who shares in the priestly ministry of Christ. It is for this reason that iconographically Christ the “high priest” is always depicted as adorned with bishops robes, vestments, and crown. In the East, therefore, the priest’s ministry is totally dependent on the bishop, who is the head of his particular church. This is why the priesthood is sometimes viewed as being in the place of the college of apostles, and the bishop as in the place of God. The priesthood gathers around the bishop as his advisers, but also as his ministers.

In the East it is not just the priests that are seen as icons of Christ. All the Christian faithful are icons of Christ. It is for this reason that at their baptism each of the newly-illumined are traditionally given a cross without a corpus. We, as the icons of Christ, supply the missing corpus with our very selves.

According to Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, the priest, during the Divine Liturgy, functions more “in persona populi” than “in persona Christi”.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, Latin Catholics would agree that all the baptized act ‘in the person of Christ’ in a certain sense by virtue of our adoption into the divine sonship; as Scripture says, we ‘put on Christ’ at baptism. It is also true that priests receive their ministry from bishops: for example, a Latin priest cannot hear confessions unless his bishop has granted him faculties. That being said, the bishop is sharing his priestly ministry with his presbyters, so it logically follows that the presbyters are sharing in the priesthood of Christ, even if in a lesser sense than the bishop. If the priest is not acting in the person of Christ, how does he offer a pleasing sacrifice to the Father when Christ alone is our one true priest and Christ alone our one true sacrifice.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Latin Catholics say that the priest is “in persona Christi”. How is this any different from saying “in persona Dei” since Christ Jesus Himself is fully God?

Now you’re getting into a discussion about the Trinity. This one is about the priesthood.

The message I responded to separated Christ from God, so I thought that was the given. If you’re going to be a moving target, I’ll never catch up to you.