What do you think?
Rate this book
Christ and the the Catholic Priesthood: Ecclesial Hierarchy and the Pattern of the Trinity
The leading figures of the Enlightenment and the Reformation (and leading up to Catholic theologians of our own day) have subjected Catholic understanding of ecclesial hierarchy and sacramental mediation of the priesthood to a withering critique. Christ and the Catholic Ecclesial Hierarchy and the Pattern of the Trinity will establish the foundation for a theology of the hierarchical priesthood based on the hierarchical order of the Trinitarian gift, of love. Matthew Levering's brilliant original study systematically analyzes in detail the nature of Christ's priesthood, Christian hierarchical priesthood, and sacramental mediation. The book's five chapters approach the topic of hierarchy in the Church through Trinitarian and soteriological reflection, unified by dialogical engagement with the biblical, patristic, and metaphysical resources of St. Thomas Aquinas's theology.
- GenresTheology
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
1 person is currently reading
41 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Levering
128 books61 followersMatthew Levering (PhD, Boston College) is professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including Ezra & Nehemiah in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. He is also coauthor of Holy People, Holy Land and Knowing the Love of Christ.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 7, 2016
In the Father’s begetting of the Son and the Son’s spirating of the Spirit back to the Father there is a certain gifting and receiving that constitute the communion of the divine Persons without weakening their overall and essential unity. Here we run into Levering’s thesis that the church is a grand participation in the divine community of persons. Human life is meant to be lived receptively; Christian theology would say life is to be lived both in communion with each other and with total and complete dependence upon God. The ministry of the ordained priesthood then represents the faithful God to whom the church kneels in dependence; given this representative role vis-à-vis the congregant, “divine worship’s priestly pattern of gifting and receiving provides the pattern for all other aspects of Christian life.” Indeed, Levering follows Thomas Aquinas in articulating the creedal claim “I believe . . . the holy catholic church” as a confession of the Holy Spirit’s sanctification of the church.
Trinitarian theology of Thomas Aquinas A central aim of Levering’s work is to bring a fresh perspective on Aquinas that allows his light to shine on contemporary issues and problems in theology with a decided emphasis on precisely this participatory dimension in the God-World relationship. His theology of the priesthood and its overarching implications is no small matter for Levering. With Aquinas, Levering is able to tightening his argument. This is especially true by responding to the more modern critique that Church order has a fundamental theological separation from questions about the nature of the Church itself. And while it is true that the Aquinas the modern world tends to know is a distorted Thomas which has been reinterpreted and constructed by latter commentators and the manual traditions, Levering does a good job trying to expose a more real and genuine Thomas. This seems, as least partly, to be the intentions of his overall theological project and contextualizing Thomas’ hermeneutics for doing theology.
The theology of Aquinas is in truth set within an over-arching scheme which comprehends the plurality that is the created order in terms of a transcendental-participatory structure, with the Divine Trinity as the uncreated and infinite substantial unity, exemplar, and ontic source of all created things in their manifold essences, individual acts of being, and ordering to each other, to the whole, and to God. This is just the active principle whereby Levering articulates his own syntheses here. The unity of the Church is a participation in the unity of the Holy Trinity. But the hierarchical structure of the Church manifests the Church’s participation in the dynamic structure of giving/receptivity that is the Trinitarian Life revealed in Jesus Christ. In the Trinitarian explication of Aquinas, the Father is the non-temporal “principle” whose action is total self-gift eternally bound to the proceeding filial receptivity of the Son, who together with the Father spirates Gift and Love, the Person of the Holy Spirit. We see then how Son and Spirit are both receiving and giving. Yet the Father is receiving as well, since it is the relationship of giving/receiving between Father and Son which is the very fatherhood of the Father – without the receiving of the Son, the Father is not Father. This dynamic communion of giving/receiving takes place on the level of substance, and thus the substantial unity of the Godhead is guaranteed. The hierarchical authority of the Church, in its Spirit-governed infallibility, guarantees the participatory receptivity of the Church as a whole, and at the same time this union of the members of the Church with one another holds fast the participatory union of the Church on the substantial level, allowing the spiritual receiving to become pass over into a spiritual giving. This giving is achieved most excellently and as primary source in the sacramental mode proper to hylomorphic creatures – a spiritual presence mediated under material signs.
However, in light of this Thomistic reasoning, could one have concerns about the shape of participation in the triune life? We can say that with our dependence of God and his grace in the sacraments, this Trinitarian participation is imaged in the reception and giving of faith and the sacraments. Yes, there is a Trinitarian giving and receiving in Church’s sacramental life. But the question is does it have to be or is it at all hierarchical? Are the ministers of these sacraments a hierarchical entity as it were – the Father (hierarchical minister) begetting the Son (the Church receiving the sacraments, grace and faith), and the Son spirating the Spirit back to the Father (the members of the Church assenting to faith in God). Certainly Levering thinks so, but by calling this reality an equal communion likened unto the Trinity might be too abstract to make it so. To argue further and to know more we must move to priesthood and ministry in the New Testament.
Priesthood in the New Testament Wesley Outside of the Gospels, priesthood is mentioned three places in the New Testament. The first is throughout the Letter to the Hebrews referring to the one and eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, and the nature of Jesus Christ’s priesthood (cf. Hebrews 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-5:10, 6:20-7:5, 7:11-8:5, 9:11). The second is the First Letter of Peter, in which the author describes all disciples of Jesus Christ as a royal priesthood (cf. 1 Peter 2:9-10). The third is in the Book of Revelation. Here the author again refers to the priests which the Lord Jesus has won for God the Father, and how he has made them righteous and blessed disciples (cf. Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).
In the other writings of the New Testament outside of the Gospels, we have only different types of ministers and ministries with no mention of priests and priesthood. There are, in a later and more developed ecclesial life, structure and theology, those referred to as presbyters and episcopos. But what these terms mean is up for debate, an issue Levering does cover with some detail but, as we will see, the point about priesthood only mentioned in Hebrews, 1 Peter and Revelation are not covered, analyzed, or exegeted by Levering as strongly. This leads to one of the weaker parts of Levering’s thought and argument of the history of the Catholic priesthood.
We begin by looking at the theology of priesthood in the “pre-paschal” theology and the historical Jesus then moving on to the rest of the New Testament the role of leadership in the Church, especially Paul and 1 Corinthians, while analyzing and exegeting the use of priesthood in the three aforementioned texts, primarily 1 Peter. We will use this as a means of filling the gaps and strengthen Levering’s arguments of the historicity and theology of the early state of the priesthood in the Church.
The Historical Jesus and Priesthood
One of Levering’s biggest weaknesses might be his failure to develop a solid and well-balanced overarching explanation of the historical Jesus. He does try to do this by making mention of the exegesis of N.T. Wright, among others, but there certainly could be more done here in this regard, and the exegetes he does use are not without reproach in the conclusions and exegesis. What we want to do here is to look at the one whom Christians see as the one High Priest, the earthly Jesus Nazareth, the dust-covered apocalyptic Jew. What is clear is that the historical Jesus was a descendent of David, so we could say that he is more royal, political than Levitical (priestly) but perhaps with Levitical blood in the family line of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. Jesus would have known the Hebrew biblical texts quite well, especially the Pentateuch, Psalms, Daniel, and Isaiah. We know at Jesus’ time the Qumran Essenes were rather levitical, and potentially so too their star alumnus, John the Baptist. Still, Jesus’ goal in his public ministry was a renewal of the people in preparation for a new divine intervention in history, the kingdom in its fullness, drawing upon the ministry of John the Baptist. However, Jesus’ public ministry was short. He did, though, gather and form the apostles as emissaries and preachers. We can say de did inaugurate baptism and eucharist. These reinterpreted Jewish rituals were performed by non-Levites. He was not a mere modern romantic that believed human groups could get on without spiritual leadership; fanning ideal leadership with a Jewish spirit of study and intellectuality. Had he had time to prepare, he could well have given his inner disciples rabbinic semicha, the laying on of hands such as Paul experienced: Acts 13:1-3 – all of which Levering is incomplete in or fails to recognize in his analysis and exegesis altogether. Levering does, however, make mention of the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus call himself a priest, and his actions are never described as “priestly.” But we do see in Mark 10, and likely in the historical Jesus himself, the idea of sacrifice. In Mark 10:45 we see that Jesus, as the “Son of Man” came to give, as a form of service, his life as a “ransom for many.” This idea of sacrifice certainly seems to have a cultic and priestly dimension to it. Therefore one could say that this idea of priesthood is the priest that the historical Jesus passes on to his Church. But did the historical Jesus actually say this? And if he did think of his life as a priestly ransom, what kind of priesthood does he pass on to his disciples?
Levering is correct in saying that it would not be possible to prove that Jesus thought of his death in a priestly and sacrificial way. This would be especially true with Mark 10 in connection with the sacramental and paschal action of the “Last Supper” as found in the Gospels. But though we cannot say for sure, we can say that it was plausible that Jesus saw his actions as priestly. Levering’s conclusion then, along with some contemporary scholarship and identifying eschatological, sacrificial, sanctifying, and unitive dimensions of Jesus’ Paschal action, is a good one, and seems to lay a good foundation, for the most part, of the priesthood leading to the early Christians.
Priesthood and ministry in St. Paul
To give more depth to the research of Levering in the regard of leadership and ministers in the thought of St. Paul, we look to James Tunstead Burtchaell, an exegete Levering does reference, but one that we will use to further Levering’s argument and work. Burtchaell argues then that the charismatics were the stars at first, even after Easter. But was is key, is that it was not just the charismatics; there were others in authority and who were also stars as it were. We see that alongside the charismatics there were elders running the church, even Paul’s churches. Paul never mentions the elders, presbyteroi, those in authority alongside the charismatics, those (presbyteroi) who would have ran the synagogues; but as a Jew and a Pharisee Paul would have been familiar with the elder leadership of the Temple. As such, we could say that they are implied in the key text 1 Thess 5:12-13: “Those who are over you in the Lord.” Those are the elders. Thus we can say, supporting Levering, that there never was an “officerless” church.
1 Corinthians
Levering does a good job of stating that “when Paul instructs the Corinthians about how human beings receive the power of the cross, he distinguishes between (without separating) ordinary believers and the apostles, along with those who share the apostles’ mandate.” Paul does make sure to express his authority and identity as an apostle when he begins to address the Corinthians. The role of authority of the apostle is also seen in Paul’s instructions to the Corinth community to welcome Timothy as an apostle “for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I also am. Let no one therefore despise him” (1 Cor 16-10-11).
Furthermore, Paul employs, Levering says, “the human body as an image of this mediated unity with Christ.” He acknowledges that Paul does mention that in that body of Christ each person is one. But with this unity of the faithful in Christ comes a hierarchy of parts. But, as Levering says, “this hierarchy does not place the parts in opposition. Each part of the body participates in the others’, so as to constitute a hierarchical unit.” This is demonstrated when Paul says, “For the body does not consist of one member but of many” (1 Cor 12:14), and in saying “there are many parts, yet one body” (1 Cor 12:20). In this analogy there are lower parts, but all important in the “part” which they are. Thus the unity of the body does not negate the hierarchy of parts/ministries as seen in 1 Cor 12, but rather the hierarchy of parts serves the flourishing of the one body. In this body of Christ, the hierarchical organization of offices and ministries is one way in which Christ mediates to believers his self-subordinating love. Each member of the body must support and count on each other, serving each other in the Lord.
Paul also mentions in chapter 10 of 1 Cor. the Supper of the Lord. He asks rhetorically the Corinthian community, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16). Paul is not simply speaking of meal but of entering into a convent with Christ, communion with him and with the whole of the faithful as one in him. Can we say here that Paul shares in a special way in the power of Christ (and the men who share in the apostolic mandate)? Levering seems to think so without reservation. This might be a bit of stretch and over development, but certainly the eucharist is developing here and there are those in authority who are the “stewards of God’s mysteries” (1 Cor 4:1). In short, Paul mediates between Christ and the Corinthians. Christ and the Corinthians are connected through the mediation of Paul, and yet the Corinthian are directly united with Christ. At the very least there is a bit of development of this here. And this seems that, as Levering says, “the mediation does not occur without apostolic mediation.”
Levering concludes that the hierarchical structure and authority in the Church belongs to Christ’s way of communicating, in the Holy Spirit, the power of Christ’s self-subordinating love. This authority and apostleship are seen in all the letters of St. Paul. Again, however, the key text it seems for us is 1 Thess. 5:12 when Paul not only mentions those in authority but askes for the faithful to respect and obey them. These in authority then do indeed share in the governance of Christ, and must be given power to mediate the cross of cross and his grace to the community. These apostles, prophets and teachers in authority are those who presided at the Lord’s Supper mentioned in 1 Cor 10 and this develops its way into the post-apostolic and early patristic church as well. Thus, we can say, adding to Levering’s argument, that Paul practices placing those in authority when leaving a community, a leader who shares in distributing the mysteries of God to the body the church. Though elders and presbyters are a bit anachronistic at this point, the very action of appointing people in charge corresponds to reality. Here we see that there were those in authority in the early communities, not just the charismatic and their ministers/ministries. But we must be honest to Levering’s work and not overestimate what we know about such ministers and their authority. We learn more about these leadership ministries and the episcopate and presbyters in the post-Pauline letters and the late New Testament period into the early patristic church.
Priesthood in the rest of the New Testament
The Royal Priesthood of 1 Peter
Levering interprets this text in light of the cultic priesthood of Christ, which is required because of the institution and divine of command of the Last Supper and the Eucharist. It is the priesthood instituted, Levering believes, at the Eucharistic Last Supper which makes it possible for all believers to be a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:9). It is the Christian hierarchal priesthood sacramentally which mediates to all believers the power of Jesus’ Pasch. But does the Church at the time when 1 Peter was written believe in a hierarchal priesthood as such, not to mention the early Church a generation later?
What Levering does fail at, or at the very least is quite weak in, is to recognize the primary of place given to the universal baptismal priesthood. The ministerial priesthood, the successors of the apostles, gives life to the whole church through teaching, pastoring, and sanctifying, but exist on account of the baptized priesthood. One could say that the ministerial priesthood, episcopoi and presbyteri, never loses their baptismal priesthood identity. With this reality, we can say that those who are a part of the ministerial hierarchal priesthood can only be so because of their baptismal priesthood. As St. Augustine says, “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian.” All Christians are given charisms, as we saw in the Pauline corpus, for the building up of the church. The apostles, teachers, and pastors, those in authority (1 Thes. 5:12) are all ministers (those we can perhaps say today would be a part of the hierarchal priesthood), but firstly all ministers in the Church are baptized persons who share with all the members of the Body of Christ the “priestly quality received in their baptism.”
If 1 Peter is right, and we all share in the priestly identity of Christ, it is solely because they are his members. All become then “other Christs,” not just those in orders. This is why several generations later, Augustine can make his episcopate and discipleship claim that we have just seen. Though this reality of priestly identity exists to all the members, in history it has been extended in name primarily to the ministerial priesthood. There are many reasons in the Church’s history, though as Torrell says, “many are insufficient.” One reason would be, a reason that Levering does not take up, to bring back the priesthood of the old covenant and apply it to the ministers in the new out of nostalgia. This why the Letter to the Hebrews mentions Christ as the high-priest so often, but realizing that the author of this letter never makes the leap of naming ministers “priest” as does for Christ. Once the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ have been recognized by the church in the new covenant, and once the novelty of Christian ministry has worn off, it is then possible for the church to, as Torrell says, “pick up the Old Testament categories again and, at the same time, to bypass the narrowing of the priestly function as it was exercised in the Jewish milieu at the time of Christ, to find the link between the three messianic functions and to emphasize the figurative and topological value of the Old Testament ministries.”
Trinitarian theology of Thomas Aquinas A central aim of Levering’s work is to bring a fresh perspective on Aquinas that allows his light to shine on contemporary issues and problems in theology with a decided emphasis on precisely this participatory dimension in the God-World relationship. His theology of the priesthood and its overarching implications is no small matter for Levering. With Aquinas, Levering is able to tightening his argument. This is especially true by responding to the more modern critique that Church order has a fundamental theological separation from questions about the nature of the Church itself. And while it is true that the Aquinas the modern world tends to know is a distorted Thomas which has been reinterpreted and constructed by latter commentators and the manual traditions, Levering does a good job trying to expose a more real and genuine Thomas. This seems, as least partly, to be the intentions of his overall theological project and contextualizing Thomas’ hermeneutics for doing theology.
The theology of Aquinas is in truth set within an over-arching scheme which comprehends the plurality that is the created order in terms of a transcendental-participatory structure, with the Divine Trinity as the uncreated and infinite substantial unity, exemplar, and ontic source of all created things in their manifold essences, individual acts of being, and ordering to each other, to the whole, and to God. This is just the active principle whereby Levering articulates his own syntheses here. The unity of the Church is a participation in the unity of the Holy Trinity. But the hierarchical structure of the Church manifests the Church’s participation in the dynamic structure of giving/receptivity that is the Trinitarian Life revealed in Jesus Christ. In the Trinitarian explication of Aquinas, the Father is the non-temporal “principle” whose action is total self-gift eternally bound to the proceeding filial receptivity of the Son, who together with the Father spirates Gift and Love, the Person of the Holy Spirit. We see then how Son and Spirit are both receiving and giving. Yet the Father is receiving as well, since it is the relationship of giving/receiving between Father and Son which is the very fatherhood of the Father – without the receiving of the Son, the Father is not Father. This dynamic communion of giving/receiving takes place on the level of substance, and thus the substantial unity of the Godhead is guaranteed. The hierarchical authority of the Church, in its Spirit-governed infallibility, guarantees the participatory receptivity of the Church as a whole, and at the same time this union of the members of the Church with one another holds fast the participatory union of the Church on the substantial level, allowing the spiritual receiving to become pass over into a spiritual giving. This giving is achieved most excellently and as primary source in the sacramental mode proper to hylomorphic creatures – a spiritual presence mediated under material signs.
However, in light of this Thomistic reasoning, could one have concerns about the shape of participation in the triune life? We can say that with our dependence of God and his grace in the sacraments, this Trinitarian participation is imaged in the reception and giving of faith and the sacraments. Yes, there is a Trinitarian giving and receiving in Church’s sacramental life. But the question is does it have to be or is it at all hierarchical? Are the ministers of these sacraments a hierarchical entity as it were – the Father (hierarchical minister) begetting the Son (the Church receiving the sacraments, grace and faith), and the Son spirating the Spirit back to the Father (the members of the Church assenting to faith in God). Certainly Levering thinks so, but by calling this reality an equal communion likened unto the Trinity might be too abstract to make it so. To argue further and to know more we must move to priesthood and ministry in the New Testament.
Priesthood in the New Testament Wesley Outside of the Gospels, priesthood is mentioned three places in the New Testament. The first is throughout the Letter to the Hebrews referring to the one and eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, and the nature of Jesus Christ’s priesthood (cf. Hebrews 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-5:10, 6:20-7:5, 7:11-8:5, 9:11). The second is the First Letter of Peter, in which the author describes all disciples of Jesus Christ as a royal priesthood (cf. 1 Peter 2:9-10). The third is in the Book of Revelation. Here the author again refers to the priests which the Lord Jesus has won for God the Father, and how he has made them righteous and blessed disciples (cf. Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).
In the other writings of the New Testament outside of the Gospels, we have only different types of ministers and ministries with no mention of priests and priesthood. There are, in a later and more developed ecclesial life, structure and theology, those referred to as presbyters and episcopos. But what these terms mean is up for debate, an issue Levering does cover with some detail but, as we will see, the point about priesthood only mentioned in Hebrews, 1 Peter and Revelation are not covered, analyzed, or exegeted by Levering as strongly. This leads to one of the weaker parts of Levering’s thought and argument of the history of the Catholic priesthood.
We begin by looking at the theology of priesthood in the “pre-paschal” theology and the historical Jesus then moving on to the rest of the New Testament the role of leadership in the Church, especially Paul and 1 Corinthians, while analyzing and exegeting the use of priesthood in the three aforementioned texts, primarily 1 Peter. We will use this as a means of filling the gaps and strengthen Levering’s arguments of the historicity and theology of the early state of the priesthood in the Church.
The Historical Jesus and Priesthood
One of Levering’s biggest weaknesses might be his failure to develop a solid and well-balanced overarching explanation of the historical Jesus. He does try to do this by making mention of the exegesis of N.T. Wright, among others, but there certainly could be more done here in this regard, and the exegetes he does use are not without reproach in the conclusions and exegesis. What we want to do here is to look at the one whom Christians see as the one High Priest, the earthly Jesus Nazareth, the dust-covered apocalyptic Jew. What is clear is that the historical Jesus was a descendent of David, so we could say that he is more royal, political than Levitical (priestly) but perhaps with Levitical blood in the family line of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. Jesus would have known the Hebrew biblical texts quite well, especially the Pentateuch, Psalms, Daniel, and Isaiah. We know at Jesus’ time the Qumran Essenes were rather levitical, and potentially so too their star alumnus, John the Baptist. Still, Jesus’ goal in his public ministry was a renewal of the people in preparation for a new divine intervention in history, the kingdom in its fullness, drawing upon the ministry of John the Baptist. However, Jesus’ public ministry was short. He did, though, gather and form the apostles as emissaries and preachers. We can say de did inaugurate baptism and eucharist. These reinterpreted Jewish rituals were performed by non-Levites. He was not a mere modern romantic that believed human groups could get on without spiritual leadership; fanning ideal leadership with a Jewish spirit of study and intellectuality. Had he had time to prepare, he could well have given his inner disciples rabbinic semicha, the laying on of hands such as Paul experienced: Acts 13:1-3 – all of which Levering is incomplete in or fails to recognize in his analysis and exegesis altogether. Levering does, however, make mention of the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus call himself a priest, and his actions are never described as “priestly.” But we do see in Mark 10, and likely in the historical Jesus himself, the idea of sacrifice. In Mark 10:45 we see that Jesus, as the “Son of Man” came to give, as a form of service, his life as a “ransom for many.” This idea of sacrifice certainly seems to have a cultic and priestly dimension to it. Therefore one could say that this idea of priesthood is the priest that the historical Jesus passes on to his Church. But did the historical Jesus actually say this? And if he did think of his life as a priestly ransom, what kind of priesthood does he pass on to his disciples?
Levering is correct in saying that it would not be possible to prove that Jesus thought of his death in a priestly and sacrificial way. This would be especially true with Mark 10 in connection with the sacramental and paschal action of the “Last Supper” as found in the Gospels. But though we cannot say for sure, we can say that it was plausible that Jesus saw his actions as priestly. Levering’s conclusion then, along with some contemporary scholarship and identifying eschatological, sacrificial, sanctifying, and unitive dimensions of Jesus’ Paschal action, is a good one, and seems to lay a good foundation, for the most part, of the priesthood leading to the early Christians.
Priesthood and ministry in St. Paul
To give more depth to the research of Levering in the regard of leadership and ministers in the thought of St. Paul, we look to James Tunstead Burtchaell, an exegete Levering does reference, but one that we will use to further Levering’s argument and work. Burtchaell argues then that the charismatics were the stars at first, even after Easter. But was is key, is that it was not just the charismatics; there were others in authority and who were also stars as it were. We see that alongside the charismatics there were elders running the church, even Paul’s churches. Paul never mentions the elders, presbyteroi, those in authority alongside the charismatics, those (presbyteroi) who would have ran the synagogues; but as a Jew and a Pharisee Paul would have been familiar with the elder leadership of the Temple. As such, we could say that they are implied in the key text 1 Thess 5:12-13: “Those who are over you in the Lord.” Those are the elders. Thus we can say, supporting Levering, that there never was an “officerless” church.
1 Corinthians
Levering does a good job of stating that “when Paul instructs the Corinthians about how human beings receive the power of the cross, he distinguishes between (without separating) ordinary believers and the apostles, along with those who share the apostles’ mandate.” Paul does make sure to express his authority and identity as an apostle when he begins to address the Corinthians. The role of authority of the apostle is also seen in Paul’s instructions to the Corinth community to welcome Timothy as an apostle “for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I also am. Let no one therefore despise him” (1 Cor 16-10-11).
Furthermore, Paul employs, Levering says, “the human body as an image of this mediated unity with Christ.” He acknowledges that Paul does mention that in that body of Christ each person is one. But with this unity of the faithful in Christ comes a hierarchy of parts. But, as Levering says, “this hierarchy does not place the parts in opposition. Each part of the body participates in the others’, so as to constitute a hierarchical unit.” This is demonstrated when Paul says, “For the body does not consist of one member but of many” (1 Cor 12:14), and in saying “there are many parts, yet one body” (1 Cor 12:20). In this analogy there are lower parts, but all important in the “part” which they are. Thus the unity of the body does not negate the hierarchy of parts/ministries as seen in 1 Cor 12, but rather the hierarchy of parts serves the flourishing of the one body. In this body of Christ, the hierarchical organization of offices and ministries is one way in which Christ mediates to believers his self-subordinating love. Each member of the body must support and count on each other, serving each other in the Lord.
Paul also mentions in chapter 10 of 1 Cor. the Supper of the Lord. He asks rhetorically the Corinthian community, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16). Paul is not simply speaking of meal but of entering into a convent with Christ, communion with him and with the whole of the faithful as one in him. Can we say here that Paul shares in a special way in the power of Christ (and the men who share in the apostolic mandate)? Levering seems to think so without reservation. This might be a bit of stretch and over development, but certainly the eucharist is developing here and there are those in authority who are the “stewards of God’s mysteries” (1 Cor 4:1). In short, Paul mediates between Christ and the Corinthians. Christ and the Corinthians are connected through the mediation of Paul, and yet the Corinthian are directly united with Christ. At the very least there is a bit of development of this here. And this seems that, as Levering says, “the mediation does not occur without apostolic mediation.”
Levering concludes that the hierarchical structure and authority in the Church belongs to Christ’s way of communicating, in the Holy Spirit, the power of Christ’s self-subordinating love. This authority and apostleship are seen in all the letters of St. Paul. Again, however, the key text it seems for us is 1 Thess. 5:12 when Paul not only mentions those in authority but askes for the faithful to respect and obey them. These in authority then do indeed share in the governance of Christ, and must be given power to mediate the cross of cross and his grace to the community. These apostles, prophets and teachers in authority are those who presided at the Lord’s Supper mentioned in 1 Cor 10 and this develops its way into the post-apostolic and early patristic church as well. Thus, we can say, adding to Levering’s argument, that Paul practices placing those in authority when leaving a community, a leader who shares in distributing the mysteries of God to the body the church. Though elders and presbyters are a bit anachronistic at this point, the very action of appointing people in charge corresponds to reality. Here we see that there were those in authority in the early communities, not just the charismatic and their ministers/ministries. But we must be honest to Levering’s work and not overestimate what we know about such ministers and their authority. We learn more about these leadership ministries and the episcopate and presbyters in the post-Pauline letters and the late New Testament period into the early patristic church.
Priesthood in the rest of the New Testament
The Royal Priesthood of 1 Peter
Levering interprets this text in light of the cultic priesthood of Christ, which is required because of the institution and divine of command of the Last Supper and the Eucharist. It is the priesthood instituted, Levering believes, at the Eucharistic Last Supper which makes it possible for all believers to be a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:9). It is the Christian hierarchal priesthood sacramentally which mediates to all believers the power of Jesus’ Pasch. But does the Church at the time when 1 Peter was written believe in a hierarchal priesthood as such, not to mention the early Church a generation later?
What Levering does fail at, or at the very least is quite weak in, is to recognize the primary of place given to the universal baptismal priesthood. The ministerial priesthood, the successors of the apostles, gives life to the whole church through teaching, pastoring, and sanctifying, but exist on account of the baptized priesthood. One could say that the ministerial priesthood, episcopoi and presbyteri, never loses their baptismal priesthood identity. With this reality, we can say that those who are a part of the ministerial hierarchal priesthood can only be so because of their baptismal priesthood. As St. Augustine says, “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian.” All Christians are given charisms, as we saw in the Pauline corpus, for the building up of the church. The apostles, teachers, and pastors, those in authority (1 Thes. 5:12) are all ministers (those we can perhaps say today would be a part of the hierarchal priesthood), but firstly all ministers in the Church are baptized persons who share with all the members of the Body of Christ the “priestly quality received in their baptism.”
If 1 Peter is right, and we all share in the priestly identity of Christ, it is solely because they are his members. All become then “other Christs,” not just those in orders. This is why several generations later, Augustine can make his episcopate and discipleship claim that we have just seen. Though this reality of priestly identity exists to all the members, in history it has been extended in name primarily to the ministerial priesthood. There are many reasons in the Church’s history, though as Torrell says, “many are insufficient.” One reason would be, a reason that Levering does not take up, to bring back the priesthood of the old covenant and apply it to the ministers in the new out of nostalgia. This why the Letter to the Hebrews mentions Christ as the high-priest so often, but realizing that the author of this letter never makes the leap of naming ministers “priest” as does for Christ. Once the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ have been recognized by the church in the new covenant, and once the novelty of Christian ministry has worn off, it is then possible for the church to, as Torrell says, “pick up the Old Testament categories again and, at the same time, to bypass the narrowing of the priestly function as it was exercised in the Jewish milieu at the time of Christ, to find the link between the three messianic functions and to emphasize the figurative and topological value of the Old Testament ministries.”
April 3, 2020
A superb theological defense of catholic hierarchy. (340 pages, not 240)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews