BartholomewB:
the standard Catholic interpretation is that the Church (in 1 Peter) stands in relation to the rest of the world as a priest stands in relation to the laity. … That view is not shared, however, by certain Protestants who quote Peter’s words as meaning that all Christians are priests
Hmm. No, I’m not sure that’s the “standard Catholic interpretation.” We Catholics, too, believe that all the baptized are “priest, prophet and king.” The idea of the ‘ordinary priesthood’ – which, I’d assert, is what is supported by 1 Pet 2:9 – is part of our Tradition (cf CCC #1546).
The answer to the OP’s question, I think, is found both by looking at history and the Tradition of the Church, but I think it’s important to examine the question itself first.
In his EWTN call-in program “Called to Communion”, Dr David Anders is often asked the question “where do Catholics find _____ in the Bible?” His answer is always to remind callers that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith; Jesus never said, “take this book and use it as the only means of bringing folks to salvation.” Instead, what we see in the Gospels is that the system that Jesus set up was to teach a few of His followers in a special and intense way (in effect, a three-year internship!), and then set them as the leadership of the Church He founded, and commanded them with a ministry that included teaching. (In fact, there’s a line in the Gospels themselves that asserts that there was
a lot more that Jesus said and did, and it’s not possible that all that could fit in a book. The implication, then, is that this knowledge is found in
the teaching of the Apostles, not
in a book.)
So… how to answer the OP’s question? I think it’s important to understand the historical perspective. In the beginning of the Church, only the apostles (and later, their successors, the bishops) led the assembly at what we’d now call “the Mass”. They didn’t call themselves ‘priests’. Jewish clerics called
themselves ‘priests’, and since many of the first Christians also considered themselves observant Jews, they wouldn’t call their Christian leaders something that they weren’t! (This distinction is alluded to in the Letter to the Hebrews.) Only later, once the Jews had kicked Christians out of the synagogues, would Christians begin to call their clerics ‘priests’.
But, is there
any warrant for asserting that there is a
distinct ministerial priesthood that we can see in the NT? I think so. We find it in the narrative of the Last Supper, in which Jesus charges his Apostles exclusively with the command to “do this in memory of me.” We find it – albeit obliquely – in those passages which demonstrate that the apostles exercised an authority not held by Christians at large. This authority, then, was associated with their office of ‘apostle’, which also included the role that we’d today call ‘priest.’
Do we see a distinction between clergy and laity in the NT? Yes. However, it developed over time. So, looking for it as a fully-developed distinction, in the record of the first days of the Church, isn’t going to be terribly productive.
