Priesthood in the Earliest Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter steffenlaursen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steffenlaursen

Guest
Hey there,

As I mention here, I am currently reading an anti-catholic a book by Richard Bennett called “East of Eden”. There are some arguments in his book, that I would like to hear the Catholic answer to, so I’ll post them here the next couple of days. Hope I don’t make too many reposts 😉

I’ll only post that which I consider serious issues… most of the book is just plain stupid.

First serious issue comes at page 51, and is about the priesthood.

Bennett quotes the Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown’s for something like this:

In the Bible we find references to Pagan priests and Jewish priests, but never a Christian priest. Furthermore, in Hebrews 9,6-7 the writer talks about Jesus being the High Priest like the Old Covenant priests, going into the Holiest to offer himself as a sacrifice. Yet, this he does not associate with the Eucharist, nor does he say that any human is a priest in the likeness of Jesus.

It appears that Bennett credits this as being very important to his conversion, so I’d very much like some insight on it.

I’ll be back with more topics the next couple of days.
  • Steffen
 
Timothy received the “imposition of the hands” from Paul. 1Tim.3:14 *Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. *

2Tim.1:6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

St Paul appointed him Bishop of Ephesus. He wrote his epistles to Timothy, to instruct him in the duties of a bishop, both in respect to himself and to his charge; and that he ought to be well informed of the good morals of those on whom he was to impose hands: ***Impose not hands lightly upon any man. ***He tells him also how he should behave towards his clergy.

1Tim.4:17 *Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine: *
 
steffenlaursen said:
Hey there,

As I mention here, I am currently reading an anti-catholic a book by Richard Bennett called “East of Eden”. There are some arguments in his book, that I would like to hear the Catholic answer to, so I’ll post them here the next couple of days. Hope I don’t make too many reposts 😉

I’ll only post that which I consider serious issues… most of the book is just plain stupid.

First serious issue comes at page 51, and is about the priesthood.

Bennett quotes the Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown’s for something like this:

In the Bible we find references to Pagan priests and Jewish priests, but never a Christian priest. Furthermore, in Hebrews 9,6-7 the writer talks about Jesus being the High Priest like the Old Covenant priests, going into the Holiest to offer himself as a sacrifice. Yet, this he does not associate with the Eucharist, nor does he say that any human is a priest in the likeness of Jesus.

It appears that Bennett credits this as being very important to his conversion, so I’d very much like some insight on it.

I’ll be back with more topics the next couple of days.
  • Steffen
Click to expand...
Yes there were Jewish priests and pagan priests. Catholics do not have a monopoly on that title. However, Ray Brown sometimes gets a little “extravagent” in his descriptions and explainations. I have heard other non-Catholics in debates with Catholics use Ray Brown, SJ as a defense against the Catholic position. Even though he was a major contributor to the Jerome Biblical Commentary, his liberties in the use of the historical critical method to the extreme are sometimes not worthy of the intent of the writing. This being said, I still use some of his work in my preparations for bible classes.
mdcpensive1
 
The NT refers to “presbyters” in the earliest church–we call them priests. Bishops (episkopos) and deacons are also mentioned. Sounds to me like the sacrament of Holy Orders.
 
@ mdcpensive1: Just a thought: Do you think Bennet would use Brown as a scholarly source, or a source of historic information in any other context? In other words: Would Brown be labeled as a “damned liberal” by most “Bible-believing” Christians?
  • Steffen
 
steffenlaursen said:
@ mdcpensive1: Just a thought: Do you think Bennet would use Brown as a scholarly source, or a source of historic information in any other context? In other words: Would Brown be labeled as a “damned liberal” by most “Bible-believing” Christians?
  • Steffen
Click to expand...
I see the use of Ray Brown to Bennet as a source of confirmation of a point of view. To me, he is not seen as liberal or whatever, but used to substantiate a point of view.
By the way, I never took a theology course from him, but I have taken some from a contemporary of his who also wrote in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Joseph Fitzmeyer SJ.
mdcpensive1
 
steffenlaursen said:
@ mdcpensive1: Just a thought: Do you think Bennet would use Brown as a scholarly source, or a source of historic information in any other context? In other words: Would Brown be labeled as a “damned liberal” by most “Bible-believing” Christians?
  • Steffen
Click to expand...
He might be, if they had the lable of “damned conservatives”.

One of the problems with labels is that they are all too often used without defining from what point one is measuring.

In other words, one and the same person could be considered “liberal” by one individual and “conservative” by another; unless the people so calling are defined as to their own position, an outside observer would be left with not much other than the conclusion that the one being defined is probably somewhere between the two extremes.

Father Brown has taken much heat from people who seem to be on the conservative end of the spectrum. He is a scholar, and most of his writings are scholarly works written primarily to other scholars. They are difficult to read for the average layman, most particularly because the average layman does not understand how scholarly writing is set up. The question is defined, usually fairly precisely, and the answer to that question is given. When people fail to understand what the base question was and how it was defined, they are likely to read into the answer things that simply were not part of the question or the answer.

In other words, if a specific question is asked about what Scripture tells us specifically about a certain issue, if the conclusion is that Scripture says less than the common person assumes, that is not a denial of the faith, if for no other reason than that our faith is not defined solely by Scripture; it is defined by Scripture and Tradition. Saying that certain Scripture passages in and of themselves do not specifically lay out a doctrinal position does not therefore say that the doctrinal position is false; only that it is not solely substantiated by the passage.

In short, most people are not trained at all in critical reading and critical thinking (and I do not mean in criticizing reading or thinking), and when they come across something that requires critical thinking and reading, they all too often go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the piece written.
 
I see…

I was trying to see things from Bennett’s perspective, and I figure he wouldn’t think twice before calling someone a liberal (just the impression I get from his writings on Catholics). If I am right, it would seem a bit weird, that he would quote Father Brown (are there anyone else who automatically think about Chesterton’s detective-priest?) in this case. It would be - how do you say it - stacking the deck… kind of

But of course it doesn’t really concern the argument itself.
  • Steffen
 
And, if not so, to say the Bible does not emplicitly mention “priests” is to imply that all revealed truth given by God is contained in Scripture.

Christianity from the very beginning has had “priests” as witnessed by the Church from the very beginning:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309frs.asp

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top