Priesthood

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The wordpriest (Germ.Priester; Fr.prêtre; Ital.prete) is derived from the Greekpresbyteros (the elder, as distinguished fromneoteros, the younger), and is, in the hieratical sense, equivalent to the Latinsacerdos, the Greekiereus, and theHebrewkahane. By the term is meant a (male)person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice. In many instances thepriest is the religious mediator betweenGod (gods) and man and the appointed teacher of religioustruths, especially when these include esoteric doctrines. To apply the wordpriest to the magicians,prophets, and medicine-men of thereligions of primitive peoples is a misuse of the term. The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice, consequently, mere leaders in the publicprayers or guardians of shrines have no claim to the titlepriest.

Our subject may be conveniently treated under four heads: I. The Pagan Priesthood; II. The Jewish Priesthood; III. The Christian Priesthood; IV. The Blessings arising from the Catholic Priesthood.

The pagan priesthood

A. Historically the oldest ofpaganreligions, the most fully developed, and the most deeply marked by vicissitude is that ofIndia. Four divisions, distinct in history and nature, are recognizable: Vedism,Brahminism,Buddhism, andHinduism. Even in the ancientVedichymns a special priesthood is distinguishable, for although originally the father of thefamily was also the offerer of sacrifice, he usually sought the co-operation of a Brahmin. From the essential functions ofpraying and singing during the sacrifice arose in Vedism the three classes of sacrificing (adhvariu), singing (udgâtar), andprayingpriests (hotar). The four categories of soldier,priest, artisan or farmer, and slave developed formally in laterBrahminism into the four rigidly distinguished castes (Dahlmann), the Brahmins meanwhile forging ahead of the soldiers to the position of chief importance. The Brahmins alone understood the intricate and difficult sacrificial ceremonial; thanks to their greatknowledge andsacrifices, they exercised an irresistible influence over the gods; apantheistic explanation of the god Brahma invested them with a divine character. The Brahmin was thus a sacred and inviolableperson, and tomurder him the greatestsin.Brahminism has wrongly been compared withmedievalChristianity (cf. Teichmüller, "Religionsphilosophie", Leipzig, 1886, p. 528). In theMiddle Ages there was indeed a privileged priesthood, but not an hereditarypriestly caste; then as now the lowest classes could attain to the highestecclesiastical offices. Still less justified, in view of thepantheistic character of theBrahminic religion, are all attempts to trace a genetic connection between theCatholic and Indian priesthoods, since themonotheistic spirit ofCatholicism and the characteristic organization of itsclergy are irreconcilable with apantheistic conception of the Deity and the unsocial temper of a caste system.

The same remarks apply with even greater force toBuddhism which, through the reform introduced by King Asoka (239-23 B.C.), forcedBrahminism into the background. As this reform inaugurated the reign ofAgnosticism, Illusionism, and a one-sided morality, theBrahminic priesthood, with the decay of the ancient sacrificial services, lost itsraison d'être. If there be no eternal substance, no Ego, noimmortalsoul, no life beyond, theidea of aGod, of a Redeemer, of a priesthood forthwith disappears. TheBuddhistredemption is merely an ascetical self-redemption wrought by sinking into the abyss of nothingness (Nirvana). The bonzes are notpriests in the strict sense; nor hasBuddhist monasticism anything beyond the name in common withChristian monasticism. Modern zealots forBuddhism declare with increasing boldness since Schopenhauer, that what they chiefly desire is a religion withoutdogma and without an alien redeemer, a service without a priesthood. It will therefore perhaps appear all the more extraordinary thatBuddhism, in consequence of the efforts of the reformer Thong-Kaba, has developed in Tibet a formalhierarchy and hierocracy in Lamaism (Lama=Brahma).

The monasticism and the religious services of Lamaism also present so striking a similarity withCatholic institutions that non-Catholic investigators have unhesitatingly spoken of a "BuddhistCatholicism" inTibet. Pope and dalai-lama,Rome and the city of Lhasa are counterparts; Lamaism has itsmonasteries, bells, processions,litanies,relics, images ofsaints,holy water,rosary-beads,bishop'smitre,crosier, vestments, copes,baptism, confession, mass, sacrifice for the dead. Nevertheless, since it is the interior spirit that gives a religion its characteristic stamp, we can recognize in these externals, not atrue copy ofCatholicism, but only a wretched caricature. And, since this religious compound undoubtedly came into existence only in the fourteenth century, it is evident that the remarkable parallelism is the result ofCatholic influence on Lamaism, not vice versa. We can only suppose that the founder Thong-Kaba waseducated by aCatholic missionary. Of modernHinduism, Schanz draws a gloomy picture: "In addition to Vishnu and Siva, spirits anddemons are worshipped and feared. The River Ganges is held in special veneration. Thetemples are often built near lakes because to all who bathe there Brahma promises forgiveness ofsin. Beasts (cows), especially snakes, trees, and lifeless objects, serve as fetishes. Their offerings consist of flowers, oil,incense, and food. To Siva and his spouse bloodysacrifices are also offered. Nor areidolatry and prostitution wanting" ("Apologie d. Christentums", Freiburg, 1905, II, 84 sq.).

B. In the kindred but ethically superior religion of the Iranians (Parseeism,Zoroastrianism, Mazdeism), which unfortunately never overcame thetheologicaldualism between the good god (Ormuzd=Athura-Mazda) and the wicked anti-god (Ahriman=Angrô-Mainyu), there existed from the beginning a specialpriestly caste, which in theAvesta was divided into six classes. The general name forpriest wasâthravan (man of fire), and the chiefduty of the priesthood was the fire-service, fire being the special symbol ofOrmuzd, the god of light. After the destruction of the Persian monarchy only two categories ofpriests remained: the officiating (zoatar, jôtî) and the ministering (rathwi). Both were later succeeded by the Median magicians (magus), called in modern Parseeismmobed (frommogh-pati, magic-father). In addition to the maintenance of the sacred fire, theduties of thepriests were the offering ofsacrifices (flesh, bread, flowers, fruit), the performance of purifications,prayers, andhymns, and instructing in the holy law. Sacrificial animals were placed on a bundle of twigs in the open air, lest the pure earth should be defiled with blood. The humansacrifices, customary from time immemorial, were abolished by Zoroaster (Zarathustra). In ancient times the fire-altars were placed in the open air, and preferably on the mountains, but the modern Parsees have special fire-temples. Thehaoma, as the oldest sacrifice, calls for particular mention; manufactured out of the narcotic juice of a certain plant and used as a drink-offering, it was identified with the Deity Himself and given to the faithful as a means of procuringimmortality. This Iranianhaoma is doubtlessly identical with the Indiansoma, the intoxicating juice of which (asclepias acida orsacrostemma acidum) was supposed to restore to man theimmortality lost inParadise (seeEUCHARIST). When, during the reign of the Sassanides,Mithras the sun-god — according to the laterAvesta, high-priest and mediator between god and man — had gradually supplanted the creative godOrmuzd,Persian Mithra-worship held the field almost unopposed; and under the Roman Empire it exerted an irresistible influence on the West (seeMASS).

C. To turn to classical antiquity, Greece never possessed an exclusivepriestly caste, although from the Dorian-Ionian period the public priesthood was regarded as the privilege of the nobility. In Homer the kings also offersacrifices to the gods. Public worship was in general undertaken by the State, and thepriests were state officials, assigned as a rule to the service of specialtemples. The importance of the priesthood grew with the extension of the mysteries, which were embodied especially in the Orphic and Eleusinian cults. Sacrifices were always accompanied withprayers, for which as the expression of their religious sentiments the Greeks showed a special preference.

But among no people in the world were religion, sacrifice, and the priesthood to such an extent the business of the State as among the ancient Romans. At the dawn of their history, their legendary kings (e.g. Numa) are themselves the sacrificialpriests. Under the Republic, thepriestly office was open only to the patricians until the Lex Ogulina (about 300 B.C.) admitted also the plebeians. As the special object of Roman sacrifice was to avert misfortune and win the favour of the gods, divination played in it from the earliest times an important role. Hence the importance of the various classes ofpriests, who interpreted the will of the gods from the flight of birds or the entrails of the beasts of sacrifice (augures, haruspices). There were many other categories:pontifices, flamines, fetiales, luperci, etc. During imperial times the emperor was the high-priest (pontifex maximus).

D. According to Tacitus, the religion of the ancient Germans was a simple worship of the gods, without images; their services took place, not intemples, but in sacred groves. Thepriests, if one may call them such, were highly respected, and possessed judicial powers, as the Old High German word forpriest,êwarte (guardians ofjustice), shows. But a far greater influence among the people was exercised by the Celticpriests ordruids (OldIrish,drui, magician). Their real home wasIreland and Britain, whence they were transplanted to Gaul in the third century before Christ. Here they appear as apriestly caste, exempt from taxes and military service; they constitute with the nobility the ruling class, and by their activity as teachers, judges, and physicians become the representatives of a higher religious, moral, andintellectual culture. Thedruids taught the existence ofDivine providence, theimmortality of thesoul, and transmigration. They appear to have had images of the gods and to have offered humansacrifices — the latter practice may have come down from a much earlier period. Their religious services were usually held on heights and in oak-groves. After the conquest of Gaul thedruids declined in popular esteem.

E. The oldest religion of the Chinese is Sinism, which may be characterized as "the most perfect, spiritualistic, and moralMonotheism known to antiquity outside ofJudea" (Schanz). It possessed no distinct priesthood, thesacrifices (animals, fruits, andincense) being offered by state officials in the name of the ruler. In this respect no alteration was made by the reformerConfucius (sixth century B.C.), although he debased the concept of religion and made the almost deified emperor "the Son ofHeaven" and the organ of the cosmicintellect. In direct contrast to this priestless system Laotse (b. 604 B.C.), the founder of Taoism (tao, reason), introduced both monasticism and a regular priesthood with a high-priest at its head. From the first century before Christ, these tworeligions found a strong rival inBuddhism, althoughConfucianism remains even today the official religion ofChina.

The original national religion of theJapanese was Shintoism, a strange compound of nature-, ancestor-, and hero-worship. It is a religion withoutdogmas, without amoral code, without sacred writings. The Mikado is a son of the Deity, and as such also high-priest; his palace is the temple — it was only in much later times that the Temple of Ise was built. About A.D. 280Confucianism made its way intoJapan fromChina, and tried to coalesce with the kindred Shintoism. The greatest blow to Shintoism, however, was struck byBuddhism, which enteredJapan in A.D. 552, and, by an extraordinary process of amalgamation, united with the old national religion to form a third. This fusion is known as Rio-bu-Shinto. In the Revolution of 1868, this composite religion was set aside, and pure Shintoism declared the religion of the State. In 1877 thelaw establishing this situation was repealed, and in 1889 general religious freedom was granted. The various orders of rank amongpriests had been abolished in 1879.

F. With the ancient religion of the Egyptians theidea of the priesthood was inseparably bound up for many thousand years. Though the ruler for the time being was nominally the onlypriest, there had developed even in the ancient kingdom (from about 3400 B.C.) a specialpriestly caste, which in the middle kingdom (from about 2000 B.C.), and still more in the late kingdom (from about 1090 B.C.), became the ruling class. The great attempt at reform by King Amenhotep IV (died 1374 B.C.), who tried to banish all gods except the sun-god from theEgyptian religion and to make sun-worship the religion of the State, was thwarted by the opposition of thepriests. The whole twenty-first dynasty was afamily of priest-kings. Although Moses, learned as he was in the wisdom of the Egyptians, may have been indebted to anEgyptian model for one or two external features in his organization of Divine worship, he was, thanks to theDivine inspiration, entirely original in the establishment of the Jewish priesthood, which is based on the uniqueidea of Jahweh's covenant with the Chosen People (cf. "Realencyklopädie für protest. Theologie", XVI, Leipzig, 1905, 33). Still less warranted is the attempt of some writers on the comparative history ofreligions to trace the origin of theCatholic priesthood to theEgyptianpriestly castes. For at the very time when this borrowing might have taken place,Egyptianidolatry had degenerated into such loathsome animal-worship, that not only theChristians, but thepagans themselves turned away from it in disgust (cf. Aristides, "Apol.", xii;Clement of Alexandria, "Cohortatio", ii).

G. In the religion of theSemites, we meet first the Babylonian-Assyrianpriests, who, under the name "Chaldeans", practiced the interpretation of dreams and the reading of the stars and conducted specialschools forpriests, besides performing their functions in connection with thesacrifices. Hence their division into various classes: sacrificers (nisakku), seers (bârû),exorcist (asipu) etc. Glorioustemples with idols of human and hybrid form arose inAssyria, and (apart from theobligatory cult of the stars) served forastrological andastronomical purposes. Among the Syrians the cruel, voluptuous cult ofMoloch and Astarte found its special home, Astarte especially (Babylonian, Ishtar) being known to the ancients simply as the "Syrian Goddess" (Dea Syria). Likewise among thesemitizedPhoenicians,Ammonites, andPhilistines these ominousdeities found special veneration. Howling and dancingpriests sought to appease the bloodthirstyMoloch bysacrifices of children and self-mutilation, as the analogous Galh strove to pacify the Phrygian goddess Cybele. Thenotoriouspriests ofBaal of theChanaanites were for theJews as strong an incentive toidolatry as the cult of Astarte was a temptation to immorality. The south-Semitic religion of the ancientpagan Arabians was a plain religion of thedesert without a distinct priesthood: modernIslam orMohammedanism has aclergy (muezzin, announcer of the hours ofprayer; imâm, leader of theprayers;khâtib, preacher), but no real priesthood. The west-Semitic branch of the Hebrews is treated in the next section.

The Jewish priesthood

In the age of the Patriarchs the offering ofsacrifices was the function of the father or head of thefamily (cf.Genesis 8:20;12:7, etc.;Job 1:5). But, even before Moses, there were alsoregularpriests, who were not fathers offamily (cf.Exodus 19:22 sqq.). Hummelauer's hypothesis "Das vormosaische Priestertum in Israel", Freiburg, 1899) that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was established byGod Himself and made hereditary in thefamily of Manasses, but was subsequently abolished in punishment of the worship of thegolden calf (cf.Exodus 32:26 sqq.), can hardly be scientifically established (cf. Rev. bibl. internat., 1899, pp. 470 sqq.). In theMosaic priesthood we must distinguish:priests,Levites, andhigh-priest.

Priests

It was only after theSinaitical legislation that theIsraelitic priesthood became a special class in the community. From the tribe of Levi Jahweh chose the house of Aaron to discharge permanently and exclusively all the religious functions; Aaron himself and later thefirst-born of hisfamily was to stand at the head of this priesthood ashigh-priest, while the otherLevites were to act, not aspriests, but as assistants and servants. The solemnconsecration of the Aaronites to the priesthood took place at the same time as the anointing of Aaron ashigh-priest and with almost the same ceremonial (Exodus 29:1-37;40:12 sqq.;Leviticus 8:1-36). This singleconsecration included that of all the future descendants of thepriests, so that the priesthood was fixed in the house of Aaron by mere descent, and was thus hereditary. After theBabylonian Exile strict genealogicalproof ofpriestly descent was even more rigidly demanded, and any failure to furnish the same meant exclusion from the priesthood (Ezra 2:61 sq.;Nehemiah 7:63 sq.). Certain bodily defects, of which the later Talmudists mention 142, were also a disqualification from the exercise of thepriestly office (Leviticus 21:17 sqq.). Age limits (twenty and fifty years) were also appointed (2 Chronicles 31:17); thepriests were forbidden to take to wife a harlot or adivorcedwoman (Leviticus 21:7); during the active discharge of the priesthood, marital intercourse was forbidden. In addition to an unblemished earlier life, levitical cleanness was also indispensable for the priesthood. Whoever performed apriestly function in levitical uncleanness was to be expelled like one who entered the sanctuary after partaking of wine or other intoxicating drinks (Leviticus 10:9;22:3). To incur an uncleanness "at the death of his citizens", except in the case of immediate kin, was rigidly forbidden (Leviticus 21:1 sqq.). In cases of mourning no outward signs of sorrow might be shown (e.g. by rending the garments). On entering into their office, thepriests had first to take a bath of purification (Exodus 29:4;40:12), be sprinkled with oil (Exodus 29:21;Leviticus 8:30), and put on the vestments.

Thepriestly vestments consisted of breeches, tunic, girdle, andmitre. The breeches (feminalia linea) covered from the reins to the thighs (Exodus 28:42). The tunic (tunica) was a kind of coat, woven in a special manner from one piece; it had narrow sleeves, extended from the throat to the ankles, and was brought together at the throat with bands (Exodus 28:4). The girdle (balteus) was three or four fingers in breadth and (according to rabbinic tradition) thirty-two ells long; it had to beembroidered after the same pattern and to be of the same colour as the curtain of the forecourt and the tabernacle of the covenant (Exodus 39:38). The official vestments were completed by themitre (Exodus 39:26), a species of cap of fine linen. As nothing is said of foot-covering, thepriests must have performed the services barefooted as Jewish tradition indeed declares (cf.Exodus 3:5). These vestments were prescribed for use only during the services; at other times they were kept in an appointed place in charge of a special custodian. For detailed information concerning thepriestly vestments, seeJosephus, "Antiq.", III, vii, 1 sqq.

The officialduties of thepriests related partly to their main occupations, and partly to subsidiary services. To the former category belonged all functions connected with the public worship, e.g. the offering ofincense twice daily (Exodus 30:7), the weekly renewal of theloaves of proposition on the golden table (Leviticus 24:9), the cleaning and filling of the oil-lamps on the golden candlestick (lev., xxiv, 1). All these services were performed in the sanctuary. There were in addition certain functions to be performed in the outer court — the maintenance of the sacred fire on the altar for burntsacrifices (Leviticus 6:9 sqq.), the daily offering of the morning and eveningsacrifices, especially of the lambs (Exodus 29:38 sqq.). As subsidiary services thepriests had to present the cursed water to wives suspected ofadultery (Numbers 5:12 sqq.), sound the trumpets announcing the holy-days (Numbers 10:1 sqq.), declare thelepers clean or unclean (Leviticus 13-14;Deuteronomy 24:8; cf.Matthew 8:4), dispense fromvows, appraise all objects vowed to the sanctuary (Leviticus 27), and finally offer sacrifice for those who broke thelaw of the Nazarites, i.e. avow to avoid all intoxicating drinks and every uncleanness (especially from contact with a corpse) and to let one's hair grow long (Numbers 6:1-21). Thepriests furthermore were teachers and judges; not only were they to explain thelaw to the people (Leviticus 10:11;Deuteronomy 33:10) without remuneration (Micah 3:11) and to preserve carefully the Book of the Law, of which a copy was to be presented to the (future) king (Deuteronomy 17:18), but they had also to settle difficult lawsuits among the people (Deuteronomy 17:8;19:17;21:5). In view of the complex nature of theliturgical service,David later divided the priesthood into twenty-four classes or courses, of which each in turn, with its eldest member at its head, had to perform the service from oneSabbath to the next (2 Kings 11:9; cf.Luke 1:8). The order of the classes was determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:7 sqq.).

The income of thepriests was derived from thetithes and the firstlings of fruits and animals. To these were added as accidentals the remains of the food, and guilt-oblations, which were not entirely consumed by fire; also the hides of the animals sacrificed and the natural products and money vowed toGod (Leviticus 27;Numbers 8:14). With all these perquisites, the Jewishpriests seem never to have been a wealthy class, owing partly to the increase in their numbers and partly to the largefamilies which they reared. But their exalted office, their superioreducation, and their social position secured them great prestige among the people. In general, they fulfilled their high position worthily, even though they frequently merited the stern reproof of the Prophets (cf.Jeremiah 5:31;Ezekiel 22:26;Hosea 6:9;Micah 3:11;Malachi 1:7). With the destruction ofJerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70 the entire sacrificial service and with it the Jewish priesthood ceased. The later rabbis never represent themselves aspriests, but merely as teachers of thelaw.

Levites in the narrow sense

It has been said above that the real priesthood was hereditary in the house of Aaron alone, and that to the other descendants of Levi was assigned a subordinate position as servants and assistants of thepriests. The latter are theLevites in the narrow sense. They were divided into thefamilies of the Gersonites, Caathites, and Merarites (Exodus 6:16;Numbers 26:57), so named after Levi's three sons, Gerson, Caath, and Merari (cf.Genesis 46:11;1 Chronicles 6:1). As simple servants of thepriests, theLevites might not enter the sanctuary, nor perform the real sacrificial act, especially the sprinkling of the blood (aspersio sanguinis). This was the privilege of thepriests (Numbers 18:3, 19 sqq.;18:6). TheLevites had however to assist the latter during the sacred services, prepare the different oblations and keep thesacred vessels in proper condition. Among their chiefduties was the constant guarding of the tabernacle with theark of the covenant; the Gersonites were encamped towards the west, the Caathites towards the south, the Merarites towards the north, while Moses and Aaron with their sons guarded the holy tabernacle towards the east (Numbers 3:23 sqq.). When the tabernacle had found a fixed home inJerusalem,David created four classes ofLevites: servants of thepriests, officials and judges, porters, and finally musicians and singers (1 Chronicles 23:3 sqq.). After the building of the Temple by Solomon theLevites naturally became its guardians (1 Chronicles 26:12 sqq.). When the Temple was rebuiltLevites were established as guards in twenty-one places around (Talmud; Middoth, I, i). In common with thepriests, theLevites were also bound to instruct the people in the Law (2 Chronicles 17:8;Nehemiah 8:7), and they even possessed at times certain judicial powers (2 Chronicles 19:11).

They were initiated into office by a rite ofconsecration: sprinkling with the water of purification, shaving of the hair, washing of the garments, offering ofsacrifices,imposition of the hands of the eldest (Numbers 8:5 sqq.). As to the age of service, thirty years was fixed for the time of entrance and fifty for retirement from office (Numbers 4:3;1 Chronicles 23:24;Ezra 3:8). No special vestments were prescribed for them in the Law; in the time ofDavid and Solomon the bearers of theark of the covenant and the singers wore garments of fine linen (1 Chronicles 15:27;2 Chronicles 5:12). At the division of the Promised Land among the Twelve Tribes, the tribe of Levi was left without territory, since the Lord Himself was to be their portion and inheritance (cf.Numbers 18:20;Deuteronomy 12:12;Joshua 13:14). In compensation, Jahweh ceded to theLevites andpriests the gifts of natural products made by the people, and other revenues. TheLevites first received thetithes of fruits and beasts of the field (Leviticus 27:30 sqq.;Numbers 18:20 sq.), of which they had in turn to deliver the tenth part to thepriests (Numbers 18:26 sqq.). In addition, they had a share in the sacrificial banquets (Deuteronomy 12:18) and were, like thepriests, exempt from taxes and military service. The question of residence was settled by ordering the tribes endowed with landedproperty to cede to theLevites forty-eightLevite towns, scattered over the land, with their precincts (Numbers 35:1 sqq.); of these, thirteen were assigned to thepriests. After the division of the monarchy into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Juda, manyLevites from the northern portion removed to the Kingdom of Juda, which remained true to the Law, and took up their abode inJerusalem. After the Northern Kingdom had been chastised by the Assyrian deportation in 722 B.C., the Southern Kingdom was also overthrown by the Babylonians in 606 B.C., and numbers of theJews, including manyLevites, were hurried away into the "Babylonian exile". Only a fewLevites returned to their old home under Esdras in 450 (cf.Ezra 2:40 sqq.). With the destruction of the Herodian Temple in A.D. 70 the doom of theLevites was sealed.

The high priest

At Jahweh's command Mosesconsecrated his brother Aaron firsthigh-priest, repeated theconsecration on seven days, and on the eighth day solemnly introduced him into the tabernacle of the covenant. Theconsecration of Aaron consisted in washings, investment with costly vestments, anointing with holy oil, and the offerings of varioussacrifices (Exodus 29). As a sign that Aaron was endowed with the fullness of the priesthood, Moses poured over his head the oil of anointing (Leviticus 8:12), while the other Aaronites, as simplepriests, had only their hands anointed (Exodus 29:7, 29). Thehigh-priest was for theJews the highest embodiment of theocracy, the monarch of the whole priesthood, the special mediator betweenGod and the People of the Covenant, and the spiritual head of thesynagogue. He was thepriestpar excellence, the "greatpriest" (Greek,archiereus), the "prince among the priests", and, because of the anointing of his head, the "anointedpriest". To this exalted office corresponded his special and costly vestments, worn in addition to those of the simplepriests (Exodus 28). A (probably sleeveless) purple-blue upper garment (tunica) fell to his knees, the lower seam being ornamented alternately with small golden bells and pomegranates of coloured thread. About the shoulders he also wore a garment called theephod; this was made of costly material, and consisted of two portions about an ell long, which covered the back and breast, were held together above by two shoulderbands or epaulets, and terminated below with a magnificent girdle. Attached to theephod in front was the shield (rationale), a square bag bearing on the outside the names of the twelve tribes engraved on precious stones (Exodus 28:6), and containing within the celebratedUrim and Thummim as the means of obtaining Divine oracles and prophecies. The vestments of thehigh-priest were completed by a precious turban (tiara), bearing on a golden frontal plate the inscription: "Sacred to Jahweh".

Thehigh-priest had supreme supervision of theArk of the Covenant (and of the Temple), of Divine service in general and of the whole personnel connected with public worship. He presided at theSanhedrin. He alone could perform the liturgy on the Feast of Expiation, on which occasion he put on his costly vestments only after thesacrifices were completed. He alone might offer sacrifice for his ownsins and those of the people (Leviticus 4:5), enter the holy of holies (sanctum sanctorum), and seek counsel of Jahweh on important occasions. The office ofhigh-priest in the house of Aaron was at first hereditary in the line of hisfirst-born son Eleazar, but in the period from Heli to Abiathar (1131 to 973 B.C.) it belonged, by right of primogeniture, to the line of Ithamar. Under the rule of theSeleucidæ (from about 175 B.C.) the office was sold for money to the highest bidder. At a later period it became hereditary in thefamily of the Hasmon. With the destruction of the central sanctuary by the Romans, thehigh-priesthood disappeared.

Against the foregoing account of theMosaic priesthood, based on theOld Testament, the negative biblical critics of today make a determined stand. According to the hypothesis of Graf-Wellhausen, Moses (about 1250 B.C.) cannot be the author of thePentateuch. He was not the Divinely appointed legislator, but simply the founder of Monolatry, forethicalMonotheism resulted from the efforts of much later Prophets. Deuteronomy D made its appearance in substance in 621 B.C., when the astutehigh-priest Helkias by apiousfraud palmed off on the god-fearing King Josias the recently composed "Book of the Laws" D as written by Moses (cf.2 Kings 22:1 sqq.) When Esdras returned to Jerusalem from theBabylonian Exile about 450 B.C., he brought back the "Book of the Ritual" or thepriest's codex P, i.e., the middle portions between Genesis and Deuteronomy, composed by himself and hisschool in Babylon, although it was only in 444 B.C. that he dared to make it public. A clever editor now introduced the portions relating to public worship into the old, pre-Exilic historical books, and the entirely newidea of an Aaronic priesthood and of the centralization of the cult was projected back to the time of Moses. The story of the tabernacle of the covenant is thus a mere fiction, devised to represent the Temple atJerusalem as established in fully developed form at the dawn ofIsraelitic history and to justify the unity of worship. Although this hypothesis does not contest the great antiquity of the Jewish priesthood, it maintains that the centralization of the cult, the essential difference betweenpriests andLevites, the supreme authority of thepriests of the Temple atJerusalem as compared with the so-called hill-priests (cf.Ezekiel 44:4 sqq.), must be referred to post-Exilic times.

Without entering upon a detailed criticism of these assertions of Wellhausen and the criticalschool (seePENTATEUCH), we may here remark in general that the conservativeschool also admits or can admit that only the original portion of thePentateuch is to be accepted asMosaic, that in the same text many repetitions seem to have been brought together from different sources, and finally that additions, extensions, and adaptations to new conditions by an inspired author of a later period are by no means excluded. It must also be admitted that, though one place of worship was appointed,sacrifices were offered even in early times bylaymen and simpleLevites away from the vicinity of theArk of the Covenant, and that in restless and politically disturbed epochs the ordinance of Moses could not always be observed. In the gloomy periods marked by neglect of the Law, no attention was paid to the prohibition of hill-sacrifices, and the Prophets were often gratified to find that on the high places (bamoth) sacrifice was offered, not topagan gods, but to Jahweh. However, thePentateuch problem is one of the most difficult and intricate questions in Biblical criticism. The Wellhausen hypothesis with its bold assumptions ofpious deceits and artificial projections is open to as great, if not greater, difficulties and mysteries as the traditional view, even though some of its contributions to literary criticism may stand examination. It cannot be denied that the critical structure has suffered a severe shock since the discovery of theTell-el-Amarna lettersdating from the fifteenth century B.C., and since the deciphering of theHammurabi Code. The assumption that the oldest religion ofIsrael must have been identical with that of the primitiveSemites (Polydæmonism,Animism,Fetishism, Ancestor-worship) has beenprovedfalse, since long before 2000 B.C. a kind of Henotheism, i.e.,Polytheism with a monarchical head was the ruling religion in Babylon. The beginnings of thereligions of all peoples are purer and more spiritual than many historians ofreligions have hitherto been willing to admit. One thing is certain: the final word has not yet been spoken as to the value of the Wellhausen hypothesis.

The Christian priesthood

In theNew Testamentbishops andpriests are, according toCatholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while thepresbyters are simplepriests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). Thedeacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of thepriest, with nopriestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of thebishop and thedeacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify thepresbyter.

The divine institution of the priesthood

According to theProtestant view, there was in theprimitive Christian Church no essential distinction betweenlaity andclergy, no hierarchical differentiation of the orders (bishop,priest,deacon), no recognition ofpope andbishops as the possessors of the highestpower of jurisdiction over the Universal Church or over its several territorial divisions. On the contrary, theChurch had at first a democratic constitution, in virtue of which the local churches selected their own heads andministers, and imparted to these their inherent spiritual authority, just as in the modern republic the "sovereign people" confers upon its elected president and his officials administrative authority. The deeper foundation for this transmission of power is to be sought in theprimitive Christianidea of the universal priesthood, which excludes the recognition of a special priesthood. Christ is the solehigh-priest of theNew Testament, just as His bloody death on the Cross is the sole sacrifice ofChristianity. If allChristians without exception arepriests in virtue of theirbaptism, an official priesthood obtained by specialordination is just as inadmissible as theCatholicSacrifice of the Mass. Not the materialsacrifice of the Eucharist, consisting in the offering of (real) gifts, but only the purely spiritual sacrifice ofprayer harmonizes with the spirit ofChristianity. One is indeed forced to admit that the gradual corruption ofChristianity began very early (end of first century), since it cannot be denied thatClement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor., xliv, 4), the Teaching of theTwelve Apostles (Didache, xiv), andTertullian (On Baptism 17; "De præsc. hær.", xli; "De exhort. cast.", vii) recognize an official priesthood with the objectiveSacrifice of the Mass. The corruption quickly spread throughout the whole East and West, and persisted unchecked during theMiddle Ages, until theReformation finally succeeded in restoring toChristianity its original purity. Then "theidea of the universal priesthood was revived; it appeared as thenecessary consequence of the very nature ofChristianity. . . . Since the wholeidea of sacrifice was discarded, all danger of reversion to thebeliefs once derived from it was removed" ("Realency cl. für prot. Theol.", XVI, Leipzig, 1905, p. 50).

To these views we may answer briefly as follows.Catholictheologians do not deny that the double "hierarchy of order andjurisdiction" gradually developed from the germ already existing in the primitive Church, just as the primacy of thepope of Rome and especially the distinction of simplepriests from thebishops was recognized with increasing clearness as time advanced (seeHIERARCHY). But the question whether there was at the beginning a special priesthood in theChurch is altogether distinct. If it istrue that "the reception of theidea of sacrifice led to theidea of theecclesiastical priesthood" (loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then theproof of the Divine origin of theCatholic priesthood must be regarded as established, once it is shown that the EucharisticSacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence ofChristianity. Inproof of this we may appeal even to theOld Testament. When the Prophet Isaias foresees the entrance ofpagans into theMessianic Kingdom, he makes the calling ofpriests from theheathen (i.e. the non-Jews) a special characteristic of the new Church (Isaiah 66:21): "And I will take of them to bepriests andLevites, saith the Lord". Now this non-Jewish (Christian) priesthood in the futureMessianic Church presupposes a permanent sacrifice, namely that "clean oblation", which from the rising of the sun even to the going down is to be offered to the Lord of hosts among theGentiles (Malachi 1:11). The sacrifice ofbread andwine offered byMelchisedech (cf.Genesis 14:18 sqq.), the prototype of Christ (cf.Psalm 109:4;Hebrews 5:5 sq.;7:1 sqq.), also refers prophetically, not only to theLast Supper, but also to its everlasting repetition in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross (seeMASS). Rightly, therefore, does theCouncil of Trent emphasize the intimate connection between theSacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood (Sess. XXIII, cap. i, inDenzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 957): "Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under alllaws. Since therefore in theNew Testament theCatholicChurch has received from the Lord's institution the holy visiblesacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in theChurch there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed." Surely thislogic admits of no reply. It is, then, all the more extraordinary that Harnack should seek the origin of the hierarchical constitution of theChurch, not in Palestine, but inpaganRome. Of theCatholicChurch he writes: "She continues ever to govern the peoples; herpopes lord it likeTrajan andMarcus Aurelius. To Romulus and Remus succeeded Peter and Paul; to the proconsuls thearchbishops andbishops. To the legions correspond the hosts ofpriests andmonks; to the imperial bodyguard theJesuits. Even to the finest details, even to her judicial organization, nay even to her very vestments, the continued influence of the ancient empire and of its institutions may be traced" ("Das Wesen d. Christentums", Leipzig, 1902, p. 157). With the best of good will, we can recognize in this description only a sample of the writer's ingenuity, for an historical investigation of the cited institutions would undoubtedly lead to sources, beginnings, and motives entirely different from the analogous conditions of the Empire ofRome.

But theSacrifice of the Mass indicates only one side of the priesthood; the other side is revealed in the power of forgivingsin, for the exercise of which the priesthood is just asnecessary as it is for the power of consecrating and sacrificing. Like the general power to bind and to loose (cf.Matthew 16:19;18:18), the power of remitting and retainingsins wassolemnly bestowed on theChurch by Christ (cf.John 20:21 sqq.). Accordingly, theCatholic priesthood has the indisputable right to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of theChurch. Both sides of the priesthood were brought into prominence by theCouncil of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): "If any one shall say that in theNew Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retainingsins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him beanathema." Far from being an "unjustifiable usurpation of Divine powers", the priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation ofChristianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice. AChristianity without a priesthood cannot be theChurch ofChrist. This conviction is strengthened by consideration of thepsychological impossibility of theProtestant assumption that from the end of the first century onward,Christendom tolerated without struggle or protest the unprecedented usurpation of thepriests, who without credentials or testimony suddenly arrogated Divine powers with respect to the Eucharist, and, on the strength of a fictitious appeal to Christ, laid onbaptized sinners the grievous burden of public penance as an indispensable condition of the forgiveness ofsin.

As for the "universal priesthood", on whichProtestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said thatCatholics alsobelieve in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinaryChristian cannot be apriest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice ofprayer. For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history ofdogma attests, on the contrary, that bothideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from theCatholic mind. As a matter of fact the profound and beautifulidea of the universal priesthood may be traced fromJustin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Irenæus, (Against Heresies IV.8.3), andOrigen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (City of God XX.10) andLeo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence toSt. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and theRoman Catechism. And yet all these writers recognized, along with theSacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in theChurch. The origin of the universal priesthood extends back, as is known, to St. Peter, who declares thefaithful, in their character ofChristians, "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", and "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5, 9). But the very text shows that the Apostle meant only a figurative priesthood, since the "spiritualsacrifices" signifyprayer and the term "royal" (regale, basileion) could have had but a metaphorical sense for theChristians. TheGnostics,Montanists, and Catharists, who, in their attacks on the special priesthood, had misapplied the metaphor, were just as illogical as theReformers, since the twoideas, real and figurative priesthood, are quite compatible. It is clear from the foregoing that theCatholicclergy alone are entitled to the designation"priest", since they alone have atrue and real sacrifice to offer, the Holy Mass. Consequently,Anglicans who reject theSacrifice of the Mass are inconsistent, when they refer to theirclergy as "priests". The preachers inGermany quitelogically disclaim the title with a certain indignation.

The hierarchical position of the presbyterate

The relation of thepriest to thebishop anddeacon may be briefly explained by stating that he is, as it were, the middle term between the two, being hierarchically the subordinate of thebishop and the superior of thedeacon (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, can. vi). While the pre-eminence of thebishop over thepriest consists mainly in his power ofordination, that of thepriest over thedeacon is based on his power of consecrating and absolving (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. iv; can. i and vii). The independence of thediaconate appears earlier and more clearly in the oldest sources than that of the priesthood, chiefly because of the long-continued fluctuation in the meaning of the titles episcopus andpresbyter, which until the middle of the second century were interchangeable and synonymous terms. Probably there was a reason in fact for this uncertainty, since the hierarchical distinction betweenbishop andpriest seems to have been of gradual growth. Epiphanius (Adv. hær., lxxv, 5) offered an explanation of this condition of uncertainty by supposing thatpriests were appointed in some places where there was nobishop, while in other places where no candidates for priesthood were found, the people were satisfied with having abishop, who, however, could not be without adeacon.Cardinal Franzelin ("De eccles. Christi", 2nd ed., Rome, 1907, thes. xvi) gives good grounds for the opinion that in theBiblebishops are indeed namedpresbyter, but simplepriests are never called episcopi. The problem is, however, far from being solved, since in the primitive Church there were not yet fixed names for the different orders; the latter must rather be determined from the context according to the characteristic functions discharged. The appeal to the usage of thepagan Greeks, who had theirepiskopoi andpresbyteroi, does not settle the question, as Ziebarth ("Das griechische Vereinswesen", Leipzig, 1896) has shown in reply to Hatch and Harnack. Any attempt at a solution must take into account the varying use in different countries (e.g. Palestine,Asia Minor). In some places the "presbyters" may have been realbishops, in otherspriests in the present meaning of the term, while elsewhere they may have been mere administrative officers or worthy elders chosen to represent the local church in its external relations (seeHIERARCHY OF THE EARLY CHURCH).

Like the Apostolic writings, the "Didache", Hermas,Clement of Rome, and Irenæus often use the terms"bishop" and"priest" indiscriminately. In fact, it is really a moot question whether the presbyterate gradually developed as an offshoot of the episcopate--which is in the nature of things more likely and in view of the needs of the growing Church more readily understood--or whether, conversely, the episcopate had its origin in the elevation of the presbyterate to a higher rank (Lightfoot), which is more difficult to admit. On the other hand, even at the beginning of the second century,Ignatius of Antioch (Ep. ad Magnes., vi andpassim) brings out with remarkable clearness the hierarchical distinction between the monarchicalbishop, thepriests, and thedeacons. He emphasizes this triad as essential to the constitution of theChurch: "Without these [three] it cannot be called theChurch" (Ad Trall., iii). But, according to thelaw of historic continuity, this distinction of the orders must have existed in substance and embryo during the first century; and, as a matter of fact,St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:17, 19) mentions "presbyters" who were subordinate to the realbishop Timothy. But in the Latin writers there is no ambiguity.Tertullian (On Baptism 17) calls thebishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; andCyprian (Ep. lxi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cum episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti", i.e. thepriests united bysacerdotal dignity with thebishop (seeBISHOP).

About 360, after the development of the orders had long been complete, Aërius ofPontus first ventured to obliterate the distinction between thepriestly and episcopal orders and to place them on an equality with respect to their powers. For this he was ranked among theheretics by Epiphanius (Adv. hær., lxxv, 3). The testimony ofSt. Jerome (d. 420), whom the ScottishPresbyterians cite in behalf of the presbyteral constitution of theChurch, raises some difficulties, as he appears to assert the full equality ofpriests andbishops. It istrue that Jerome endeavoured to enhance the dignity of the priesthood at the expense of the episcopate and to refer thebishop's superiority "rather toecclesiastical custom than to Divine regulation" (In Tit., i, 5: "Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicæ veritate presbyteris esse majores"). He desired a more democratic constitution in which thepriests hitherto undeservedly slighted would participate, and he urged the correction of the abuse, widespread since the third century, by which thearchdeacons, as the "right hand" of thebishops, controlled the wholediocesan administration (Ep. cxliv ad Evangel.). It is at once evident that Jerome disputes not the hierarchical rank (potestas ordinis) of thebishops but their powers of government (potestas jurisdictionis)--and this not so much in principle, but only to insist that thedeacons should be dislodged from the position they had usurped and thepriests established in the official position befitting their higher rank. How far Jerome was from being a follower of Aërius and a forerunner ofPresbyterianism appears from his important admission that the power ofordination is possessed by thebishops alone, and not by thepriests (loc. cit. in P.L., XXII, 1193: "Quid enim facit--excepta ordinatione--episcopus quodpresbyter non faciat?"). By this admission Jerome establishes hisorthodoxy.

The sacramentality of the presbyterate

TheCouncil of Trent decreed (Sess. XXIII, can. iii, inDenzinger, n. 963): "If any one shall say that order or sacredordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted byChrist our Lord. . .let him beanathema." While the synod defined only the existence of theSacrament of Holy Orders, without deciding whether all the orders or only some fall within the definition, it is admitted that thepriestlyordination possesses with even greatercertainty than the episcopal and the diaconalordination the dignity of a sacrament (cf.Benedict XIV, "De syn. dioces.", VIII, ix, 2). The three essentials of a sacrament—outward sign, interior grace, and institution byChrist—are found in thepriestlyordination.

As regards the outward sign, there has been a long-protracted controversy amongtheologians concerning thematter and form, not alone of thepriestlyordination, but of theSacrament of Holy Orders in general. Is theimposition of hands alone (Bonaventure, Morin, and most moderntheologians), or the presentation of the instruments (Gregory of Valencia, theThomists), or are both together (Bellarmine,De Lugo, Billot etc.) to be regarded as the essential matter of the sacrament? As to thepriestlyordination in particular, which alone concerns us here, the difference of views is explained by the fact that, in addition to three impositions of hands, the rite includes a presentation to the candidate of thechalice filled with wine, and of thepaten with the host. Concerning the latterEugenius IV says expressly in his "Decretum pro Armenis" (1439; inDenzinger, n. 701): "The priesthood is conferred by the handing of thechalice containing wine and of thepaten with bread." However, in view of the fact that in theBible (Acts 13:3;14:22;1 Timothy 4:14;5:22;2 Timothy 1:6), in all patristic literature, and in the whole East theimposition of hands alone is found, while even in the West the presentation of thesacred vessels does not extend back beyond the tenth century, we are forced to recognize theoretically that the latterceremony is unessential, like the solemn anointing of thepriest's hands, which is evidently borrowed from theOld Testament and was introduced from the Gallican into theRoman Rite (cf. "Statuta ecclesiæ antiquæ" in P.L., LVI, 879 sqq.). In defence of the anointing, theCouncil of Trent condemned those who declared it "despicable and pernicious" (Sess. XXXIII, can. v). As regards the sacramental form, it may be accepted as probable that theprayer accompanying the second extension of hands (cheirotonia) is the essential form, although it is not impossible that the words spoken by thebishop during the thirdimposition of hands (cheirothesia): "Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted, etc.", constitute a partial form. The firstimposition of hands by thebishop (and the priests) cannot be regarded as the form, since it is performed in silence, but it also may have an essential importance in so far as the second extension of hands is simply the moral continuation of the first touching of the head of theordinandus (cf.Gregory IX, "Decret.", I, tit. xvi, cap. III). The oldest formularies--e.g. the "Euchologium" of Serapion ofThmuis (cf. Funk, "Didascalia", II, Tübingen, 1905, 189), the "Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions" (Funk, loc. cit., I, 520), the lately discovered "Testament of the Lord" (ed. Rahmani, Mainz, 1899, p. 68), and the Canons ofHippolytus (ed. Achelis, Leipzig, 1891, p. 61)--contain only oneimposition of hands with a short accompanyingprayer. In the eleventh century the Mozarabic Rite is still quite simple (cf. "Monum. liturg.", V, Paris, 1904, pp. 54 sq.), while, on the contrary, theArmenian Rite of theMiddle Ages shows great complexity (cf. Conybeare-Maclean, "Rituale Armenorum", Oxford, 1905, pp. 231 sqq.). In the Greek-Byzantine Rite, thebishop, after making three signs of the cross, places his right hand on the head of the ordinandus, meanwhile reciting aprayer, and then,praying in secret, holds the same hand extended above the candidate, and invokes upon him the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost (cf. Goar, "Euchol. Græc.", Paris, 1647, pp. 292 sqq.). For other formularies ofordination seeDenzinger, "Ritus Orientalium", II (Würzburg, 1864); Manser in Buchberger, "Kirchliches Handlexikon", s.v. Priesterweihe.

As a sacrament of the living,ordination presupposes the possession ofsanctifying grace, and therefore confers, besides theright to the actualgraces of thepriestly office, an increase ofsanctifying grace (cf. "Decret. pro Armenis" inDenzinger, n. 701). But in all cases, whether the candidate is in the state ofsanctifying grace or not, the sacrament imprints on thesoul an indelible spiritual mark (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. ix, inDenzinger, n. 852), i.e. thepriestly character, to which are permanently attached the powers of consecrating andabsolving—the latter, however, with the reservation that for the valid administration of theSacrament of Penance thepower of jurisdiction is also required (seeCHARACTER). As thepriestly character, like that imparted bybaptism and confirmation, is indelible,ordination can never be repeated, and a return to the lay state is absolutely impossible (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, can. iv, inDenzinger, n. 964). Thatpriestlyordination was instituted by Christ isproved not alone by the Divine institution of the priesthood (see above, A), but also by the testimony ofHoly Writ and Tradition, which unanimously testify that the Apostles transmitted their powers to their successors, who in turn transmitted them to the succeeding generation (cf.1 Timothy 5:22). Since the charismatic gifts of the "apostles andprophets" mentioned in the "Didache" had nothing to do with the priesthood as such, these itinerant missionaries still needed theimposition of hands to empower them to discharge the specificallypriestly functions (seeCHARISMATA).

For the valid reception of the Sacrament of Orders, it isnecessary that the minister be abishop and the recipient abaptizedperson of the male sex. The first requisite is based on the episcopal prerogative of ordaining; the second on the conviction thatbaptism opens the door to all the othersacraments and thatwomen are definitively barred from the service of the altar (cf. Epiphanius, "De hær.", lxxix, 2).St. Paul is a resolute champion of an exclusively male priesthood (cf.1 Corinthians 14:34). In this respect there is an essential difference betweenChristianity andPaganism, since the latter recognizes priestesses as well as priests--e.g. the hierodules of Ancient Greece, the vestal virgins ofRome, the bajaders ofIndia, the wu ofChina, and thefemale bonzes ofJapan. The early Church condemned as an absurdity thefemale priesthood ofMontanism and of the Collyridiani, and it never regarded the Apostolic institute ofdeaconesses as a branch ofHoly orders. For the licit reception ofpriestlyordination, canon law demands: freedom from every irregularity, completion of the twenty-fourth year, the reception of the earlier orders (including thediaconate), the observation of the regular interstices, and the possession of a title toordination.

In addition to the requisites for the valid and lawful reception of the priesthood the question arises as to the personal worthiness of the candidate. According to earlier canon law this question was settled by three ballots (scrutinia); it is now decided by official examination and certification. One of the most important means of securing worthy candidates for the priesthood is careful inquiry regarding vocations. Intruders in the sanctuary have at all times been the occasion of the greatest injury to theChurch, and ofscandal to the people. For this reason,Pope Pius X, with even greater strictness than was shown in previousecclesiastical regulations, insists upon the exclusion of all candidates who do not give the highest promise of a life conspicuous for firmness offaith and moral rectitude. In this connection the importance and necessity of colleges andecclesiastical seminaries for the training of theclergy cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The official powers of the priest

As said above, the official powers of thepriest are intimately connected with thesacramental character, indelibly imprinted on hissoul. Together with this character is conferred, not only the power of offering up theSacrifice of the Mass and the (virtual) power of forgivingsins, but also authority to administer extreme unction and, as the regular minister, solemnbaptism. Only in virtue of an extraordinary faculty received from thepope is apriest competent to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. While the conferring of the three sacramental orders of the episcopate, presbyterate, anddiaconate, pertains to thebishop alone, thepope may delegate apriest to administer the fourminor orders, and even thesubdiaconate. According to the present canon law, however, thepapal permission granted toabbots ofmonasteries is confined to the conferring of thetonsure and the fourminor orders on their subjects (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII de Ref., cap. x). Concerning the privilege of conferring thediaconate, claimed to have been given toCistercianabbots byInnocent VIII in 1489, see Gasparri, "De sacr. ordin.", II (Paris, 1893), n. 798, and Pohle, "Dogmatik", III (4th ed., Paderborn, 1910), pp. 587 sqq. To thepriestly office also belongs the faculty of administering theecclesiasticalblessings and thesacramentals in general, in so far as these are not reserved to thepope orbishops. By preaching the Word ofGod thepriest has his share in the teaching office of theChurch, always, however, as subordinate to thebishop and only within the sphere ofduty to which he is assigned aspastor,curate, etc. Finally, thepriest may participate in the pastoralduty in so far as thebishop entrusts him with a definiteecclesiastical office entailing a more or less extensivejurisdiction, which is indispensable especially for the validabsolution of penitents from theirsins. Certain external honorary privileges, e.g. those enjoyed bycardinal-priests,prelates,ecclesiastical councillors, etc., do not enhance the intrinsic dignity of the priesthood.

What the Catholic priesthood has done for civilization

Passing entirely over thesupernaturalblessings derived bymankind from theprayers of the priesthood, the celebration of theHoly Sacrifice, and the administration of thesacraments, we shall confine ourselves to the secular civilization, which, through theCatholic priesthood, has spread to all nations and brought into full bloom religion, morality,science, art, and industry. If religion in general is the mother of all culture,Christianity must be acknowledged as the source, measure, and nursery of alltrue civilization. TheChurch, the oldest and most successful teacher ofmankind, has in each century done pioneer service in all departments of culture. Through her organs, thepriests and especially the members of thereligious orders, she carried the light of Faith to all lands, banished the darkness ofpaganism, and with the Gospel brought theblessings ofChristian morality andeducation. What would have become of the countries about the Mediterranean during the epoch of the migration of the nations (from 375) if thepopes,bishops, andclergy had not tamed the German hordes, converted them fromArianism toCatholicism, and out of barbarism evolved order? WhatIreland owes toSt. Patrick,England owes toSt. Augustine, who, sent byPope Gregory the Great, brought not only the Gospel, but also a higher morality and culture. While the light ofChristianity thus burned brightly inIreland and Britain, part ofGermany was still shrouded in the darkness ofpaganism. Bands of missionaries from the Island of Saints now brought to the continent the message ofsalvation and established new centres of culture.Charlemagne's great work of uniting all the German tribes into an empire was only the glorious fruit of the seed sown bySt. Boniface of Certon (d. 755) on German soil and watered with the blood ofmartyrs. TheChurch of theMiddle Ages, having now attained to power, continued through herpriests to propagate the Gospel inpagan lands. It was missionaries who first brought toEurope news of the existence ofChina. In 1246 threeFranciscans, commissioned by thepope, appeared in audience before the emperor of the Mongols; in 1306 the firstChristian church was built in Peking. From the Volga to the Desert of Gobi, theFranciscans andDominicans covered the land with their missionary stations. In the sixteenth century thezeal of the older orders was rivalled by theJesuits, among whomSt. Francis Xavier must be accorded a place ofhonour; their achievements in the Reductions of Paraguay are as incontestable as their great services in theUnited States. As for the French colonies in America, the American historian Bancroft declares that no notable city was founded, no river explored, no cape circumnavigated, without aJesuit showing the way. Even if Buckle's one-sided statement weretrue, viz. that culture is not the result of religion, but vice versa, we could point to the work ofCatholic missionaries, who are striving to lift the savages inpagan lands to a higher state of morality and civilization, and thence to transform them into decentChristians.

In the wake of religion follows her inseparable companion, morality; the combination of the two forms is the indispensable preliminary condition for the continuation and vitality of all higher civilization. The decadence of culture has always been heralded by a reign of unbelief and immorality, the fall of the Roman Empire and theFrench Revolution furnishing conspicuous examples. What theChurch accomplished in the course of the centuries for the raising of the standard of morality, in the widest sense, by the inculcation of theDecalogue, that pillar of humansociety, bypromulgating the commandment oflove ofGod and one's neighbour, by preaching purity in single, married, andfamily life, by wagingwar uponsuperstition andevil customs, by the practice of the three counsels ofvoluntary poverty, obedience, and perfect purity, by holding out the "imitation of Christ" as the ideal ofChristian perfection, the records of twenty centuries plainly declare. Thehistory of the Church is at once the history of her charitable activity exercised through the priesthood. There have indeed been waves of degeneracy and immorality sweeping at times even to thepapal throne, and resulting in the general corruption of the people, and inapostasy from theChurch. The heroic struggle ofGregory VII (d. 1085) against thesimony and incontinence of theclergy stands forth as a fact which restored to the stale-grown salt of the earth its earlier strength and flavour.

The most wretched and oppressed classes of humanity are the slaves, thepoor, and the sick. Nothing is in such harsh contrast to theideas of humanpersonality and ofChristian freedom as the slavery found inpagan lands. The efforts of theChurch were at first directed towards depriving slavery of its most repulsive feature by emphasizing the equality and freedom of all children ofGod (cf.1 Corinthians 7:21 sqq.;Philemon 16 sqq.), then towards ameliorating as far as possible the condition of slaves, and finally towards effecting the abolition of this unworthy bondage. The slowness of the movement for the abolition of slavery, which owed its final triumph over the African slave-traders to a crusade ofCardinal Lavigerie (d. 1892), is explained by thenecessary consideration of theeconomicrights of the owners and the personal welfare of the slaves themselves, since a bold "proclamation of therights of man" would simply have thrown millions of helpless slaves breadless into the streets. Emancipation carried with it theobligation of caring for the bodily needs of the freedmen, and, whenever the experiment was made, it was theclergy who undertook this burden. Special congregations, such as the Trinitarians and theMercedarians, devoted themselves exclusively to the liberation and ransom ofprisoners and slaves inpagan, and especially inMohammedan lands. It wasChristian compassion for the weakly and languishing Indians which suggested to theSpanishmonk,Las Casas, the unfortunateidea of importing the strongnegroes fromAfrica to work in the American mines. That hisidea would develop into thescandalous traffic in the black race, which the history of the three succeeding centuries reveals, the noblemonk never suspected (see SLAVERY).

As to the relief of the poor and sick, a singlepriest,St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660), achieved more in all the branches of this work than many cities and states combined. The services of theclergy in general in the exercise of charity cannot here be touched upon (seeCHARITY AND CHARITIES). It may however be noted that the famous School ofSalerno, the first and most renowned, and for many centuries the only medical faculty inEurope, was founded by theBenedictines, who here laboured partly as practitioners of medicine, and partly to furnish a supply of skilled physicians for allEurope. Of recent pioneers in the domain of charity and social work may be mentioned theIrish "Apostle of Temperance", Father Theobald Matthew and the German "Father of Journeymen" (Gesellenvater), Kolping.

Intimately related with the morally good is theidea of thetrue and the beautiful, the object ofscience and art. At all times theCatholicclergy have shown themselves patrons ofscience and the arts, partly by their own achievements in these fields and partly by their encouragement and support of the work of others. Thattheology as ascience should have found its home among theclergy was but to be expected. However, the whole range ofeducation lay so exclusively in the hands of the priesthood during theMiddle Ages, that theecclesiastical distinction of clericus (cleric) and laicus (layman) developed into the social distinction ofeducated andignorant. But for themonks andclerics the ancient classical literature would have been lost. Amedieval proverb ran: "Amonastery without alibrary is a castle without an armory." Hume, thephilosopher and historian, says: "It is rare that the annals of so uncultivated a people as were the English as well as the otherEuropean nations, after the decline of Roman learning, have been transmitted to posterity so complete and with so little mixture of falsehood and fable. This advantage we owe entirely to theclergy of theChurch ofRome, who, founding their authority on their superiorknowledge, preserved the precious literature of antiquity from a total extinction" (Hume, "Hist. of England", ch. xxiii, Richard III). Among English historians Gildas the Wise,Venerable Bede, andLingard form an illustrious triumvirate. Theidea of scientific progress, first used by Vincent of Lérins with reference totheology and later transferred to the othersciences, is of purelyCatholic origin. The modern maxim, "Education for all", is a saying first uttered byInnocent III. Before the foundation of the firstuniversities, which also owed their existence to thepopes, renownedcathedralschools and other scientific institutions laboured for the extension of secularknowledge. The father of German publiceducation isRhabanus Maurus. Of old centres of civilization we may mention among those of the first rank Canterbury, the Island of Iona, Malmesbury, and York in Great Britain;Paris,Orléans, Corbie, Cluny,Chartres, Toul, and Bec inFrance;Fulda,Reichenau, St. Gall, and Corvey inGermany. The attendance at theseuniversities conducted byclergymen during theMiddle Ages awakens one's astonishment: in 1340 theUniversity of Oxford had no less than 30,000 students, and in 1538, when the Germanuniversities were almost deserted, about 20,000 students, according toLuther, flocked toParis.

The elementaryschools also, wherever they existed, were conducted bypriests.Charlemagne had already issued the capitulary "Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant et cum summa charitate parvulos doceant", i.e. Thepriests shall haveschools in the towns and hamlets and shall teach the children with the utmost devotion. The art of printing was received by the whole Church, from the lowestclergy to thepope, as a "holy art". Almost the whole book production of the fifteenth century aimed at satisfying the taste of theclergy for reading, which thus furthered the development of the book trade.Erasmus complained: "The booksellers declare that before the outbreak of the Reform they disposed of 3000 volumes more quickly than they now sell 600" (seeDöllinger, "Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung u. ihre Wirkungen", I, Ratisbon, 1851, p. 348. EarlyHumanism, strongly encouraged by PopesNicholas V andLeo X, numbered among its enthusiastic supporters manyCatholicclerics, such asPetrarch andErasmus; the later Humanisticschool, steeped inpaganism, found among theCatholic priesthood, not encouragement, but to a great extent determined opposition.Spain's greatest writers in the seventeenth century were priests: Cervantes, Lope de Vega,Calderon, etc. At Oxford in the thirteenth century, by their skill in the naturalsciences theFranciscans acquired celebrity and theBishop Grosseteste exercised great influence. The friar,Roger Bacon (d. 1249), was famous for his scientificknowledge, as were also Gerbert ofRheims, afterwards Pope Silvester II,Albertus Magnus,Raymond Lully, andVincent of Beauvais.Copernicus, canon of Thorn, is the founder of modernastronomy, in which even to the present day theJesuits especially (e.g. Scheiner, Clavius,Secchi, Perry) have rendered important services. For the first geographical chart or map we are indebted to Fra Mauro ofVenice (d. 1459). TheSpanishJesuit, Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro (d. 1809), is the father of comparative philology; theCarmelite,Paolino di san Bartolomeo, was the author of the first Sanskrit grammar (Rome, 1790). The foundation of historical criticism was laid by CardinalBaronius (d. 1607), themonks of St. Maur, and theBollandists. A study of the history of art would reveal a proportionately great number of the apostles of the beautiful in art among theCatholicclergy of all centuries. From thepaintings in thecatacombs toFra Angelico and thence to the Beuronschool we meet numerouspriest, less indeed as practicing artists than as Mæcenases of art. Theclergy have done much to justify what the celebratedsculptorCanova wrote toNapoleon I: "Art is underinfiniteobligations to religion, but to none so much as theCatholic religion."

The basis on which higher culture finds its secure foundation is material oreconomic culture, which, in spite of modern technics and machinery, rests ultimately on labour. Without the labourer's energy, which consists in the power and the will to work, no culture whatever can prosper. But theCatholic priesthood more than any other professional body has praised in word andproved by deed the value and blessing of the labour required in agriculture, mining, and the handicrafts. The curse and disdain, whichpaganism poured on manual labour, were removed byChristianity. Even anAristotle (Polit., III, iii) couldanathematize manual labour as "philistine", the humbler occupations as "unworthy of a free man". To whom are we primarily indebted inEurope for the clearing away of the primitive forests, for schemes of drainage and irrigation, for the cultivation of new fruits and crops, for the building of roads and bridges, if not to theCatholicmonks? In EasternEurope theBasilians, in Western theBenedictines, and later theCistercians andTrappists, laboured to bring the land under cultivation, and rendered vast districts free from fever and habitable. Mining and foundries also owe their development, and to some extent their origin, to the keeneconomic sense of themonasteries. To place the wholeeconomic life of the nations on a scientific foundation,Catholicbishops andpriests early laid the basis of thescience of national economy--e.g.Duns Scotus (d. 1308),Nicholas Oresme,Bishop of Lisieux (d. 1382),St. Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459), and Gabriel Biel (d. 1495). TheChurch andclergy have therefore truly endeavoured to carry out in every sphere and in all centuries the programme whichLeo XIII in his famousEncyclical "Immortale Dei" of 1 Nov., 1885, declared the ideal of theCatholicChurch: "Imo inertiæ desidiæque inimica [Ecclesia] magnopere vult, ut hominum ingenia uberes ferant exercitatione et cultura fructus". The "flight from the world", with which they are so constantly reproached, or the "hostility to civilization", which we hear so often echoed by theignorant, have never prevented theChurch or herclergy from fulfilling their calling as a civilizing agency of the first order, and thus refuting allslanders with thelogic of facts.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT