Don’t tell the pope

Nicole - fantastic! Utterly fantastic!

This is such a marvelous, brief summation of the evolution of service ministries within the faith community. I recommend George Wilson S.J.'s book, Clericalism: the Death of Priesthood, for further development of the reality of the Priesthood of the Baptized and how religious clergy are called to be of service within, not above, the community.

It is a slap in the face to laity and vowed religious to say that "without priests there would be no Church, no mission . . . " Let's hope he meant it jocularly. Many of the Church's most famous missionaries--Brother Damian, Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assisi right off the top of my head--have not been priests, even when they were celibate men and could have chosen to do so. Clearly the church exists, the Word of God is spread through mission and increasingly, the Body of Christ is broken and shared even when there are no ordained men around.

I hope the Year of the Priest is used as an opportunity to support priests who minister for justice within and without the Church, and that we laity will reach out to the priests in our midst to share our concerns, joys and lives with them. Instead, I fear it will be used in many parishes--by laity and ordained--as just another way to draw the line between us and them.

Well said. Of course I also think it is important to remember our priests. Have you said thank you to your parish priest(s)? to your pastor? Do they work 'way to hard'? Maybe we need to reflect too on how we can be 'priest' (claim our own 'priestly minsitry') in our own parish. Maybe we need to reflect on the need for married priests and women priests. After all - the C. church has had both. Instead of saying we wouldn't have eucharist or church maybe we need to think about how to be inclusive of all which means opening eucharist and church to more. Isn't that what Jesus was all about - inclusive?

This column displays the most willful ignorance, and the most anti-Catholic bigotry I've seen.

My favorite title/role is Babu! That is what my grandchildren call me! I write letters as Babu, because they are far away. When we are together we celebrate meals together and give thanks. I am not Babu because I know more than anyone else or was ordained into it, but am Babu in relationship to others. Plus, I know well my function as Babu is intimately, meaningfully and colorfully woven in my relationship with Bibi (grandmother). The "domestic church" of our family does not derive its meaning nor purpose from my Babu-ness.

The proposition that the church does not exist without priests or any other role is preposterous! We humans can cleverly adapt and invent as we always have to meet needs. We need to eat and celebrate together. We need to call each other to greateness and the Kingdom of God. We need to challenge the depth and breadth of our sacramental imagination, but this is not the role of any one caste of people. I thank God we are more than that.

Maybe the year of the priest will be an opportunity to for all of us to channel our inner priest and take him out to play.

During the Year of the Priest, is the Pope intending to dismiss, retire or even publicly name ALL Bishops who have systemattically covered up sexual abuse of adults & children, heretofore hidden by Church silence??? Not just the couple of African prelates or Latin American ones???
That act alone would restore much of the respect that the clergy & the Vatican have lost in the last few decades, both within & without the Church...

Honestly! I just don't know where some of the "Young Voices" contributors heads are at at all! Don';t they follow the Feasts ans Seasons of the Catholic Church? This day - on the Feast of Corpus Christi there is yet another forceful attack on the Church's long established Apostolic teaching on the Role of the Holy Priesthood. Why mix the priesthood of all the faithful with the sacrificial role of the Apostles? The above argument is extremely weak and in fact casts a blind eye on the vast body of work on the Holy Priesthood contained across the whole of the Deposit of Faith? Enough said, for today is a joyful Feast Day! To the author-kindly think seriously about spending time in Adoration in front of the Blessed Sacrament soon-try centering prayer! Have a blessed Corpus Christi. Rejoice for God is with us-Jesus. Praise God come in the flesh! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

'According to the Gospels, Jesus was not a priest, nor were his disciples.'

wow, she's is basically trying to use sola scriptura as a club to attack the priesthood. if she really believes that unless it is listed verbatim in one of the gospels, i would ask her to find the word 'trinity' in the bible, anywhere, as i'm sure, as a catholic, she believes it. i'll save her time, it isn't there.

sola scriptura is not valid, nicole.

and you can't find any reference to the priesthood outside of hebrews? hmmm, perhaps your bible is missing some (rather large) sections, nicole. here are some citations:

Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5 (unbroken succession of priesthood)
Acts 15:6,23; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15 (presbyters and elders ( aka 'priests' ) ordained, preached, taught, administered sacraments.

nicole, i suggest you get a catechism and refresh yourself on the teachings of christ's church. you will find a WEALTH of material there. you should also read the church fathers, who, even in the writings of the late 2nd century, speak of the catholic priesthood as well established and old.

also, kate w makes the following statement.
"Body of Christ is broken and shared even when there are no ordained men around."
how utterly asinine. without priests, there is not sacrament of the eucharist. the eucharist is the body and blood of jesus christ. without priests, you dont have the sacrament to break and spread around.

"I wouldn't worry about telling the pope that Eucharist, mission and church existed long before the priesthood"

*facepalm*

oh good heavens...

btw nicole, vatican ii in no way backs up what you are trying to say about the ordained priesthood. you are as wrong as wrong can be. try reading PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS. a healthy part of that doc seems almost custom written to shoot down your ideas on the priesthood like a stinger streaking up to snuff out a decrepit Mig-17.

Very interesting. I have started to read Schillebeeckx,"Ministry" and that is the jist of his description about the early days of the Church (as I am able to understand)as well.

The words of Kate W above are impressive. Jesus is the source of "Church" which is essentially the companionship of/in Christ. While I respect and treasure the fact and notion of the Sacraments, they are (to my non-theologically trained soul) the contemporary - visible/tangible encounter with the person of Christ which exists efficaciously regardless of the tangible.Having been incarnate, died, risen and living again for us for eternity, essentially that "once is enough"(to paraphrase James Bond). My faith in Christ's love, redemption and succor would survive and persist if the formal priesthood and institutional church was gone. I respect the nature and need for "priesthood" as well as sacrament and, yes, institution, but when "priesthood" and "prayer for vocations" is mentioned, I pray not that there will be more or that more will heed but that the Church will begin to recognize and facilitate and welcome the broader and inclusive reality of "vocation".

a royal priesthood, a people set apart:
that's us

anointed at baptism as priest, prophet and king:
that's us

at table, He blessed, broke and gave it to his friends:
that's us

I'm not so sure we need layers of structure

A pitiful attempt to rewrite history. The fact is that Christ instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper, when He called the twelve to carry on his mission. His words at the Last Supper "Do this in remembrance of Me" are a direct command to His apostles to continue celebrating the Eucharist. He commanded the twelve to do as He did when He washed their feet. Prior to His ascension, He called the eleven (Judas was dead by then) and commissioned them to go "and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". He gave Peter the "keys to the Kingdom of Heaven", telling him, and by extension the others, "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven".

During Christ's lifetime, His followers were divided into groups. He had hundreds of followers, and 70 of them He sent on mission. Of that 70 He selected 12 to be His closest cooperators, of those 12, He selected 3 (Peter, James and John) who were with Him at the most important and crucial moments. Of those three, He selected one (Peter) to govern, support, teach, and encourage the others.

The apostles selected Matthias, and laid hands on him to continue in the mission of apostle. If they did this, which clearly they did in Acts, it must mean that the role of "apostle" was separate from other ministries, and essential to the continued growth of the Church. Deacons were also appointed. Priests came later, that much is true, since in the early days of the Church, the communities gathered around the apostles and their successors to celebrate Eucharist. As the Church grew, it became necessary to select and ordain men who would act as helpers to the apostles and their successors (now called bishops).

Vatican II reminded us all that we are a priestly, kingly, and prophetic people. However, Vatican II did not mean that literally!! Unless the author of this article intends to start calling herself Queen Nicole and attempt to assume the throne, she should also not proclaim that Vatican II meant that the ordained priesthood was unnecessary and the duties of priests be taken on by laity. Come now, be serious.

We are called to be priests in as much as we sacrifice in our daily lives for our good and the good of others. We give up good things in order to help those in need. We sacrifice our time to visit folks who are sick or in prison. We sacrifice our money to help the poor. We sacrifice food or a favored drink or TV show in penance for our sins, or the sins of our friends. We offer intercession to God for ourselves, our family, the world, the poor, those in purgatory, etc. This is how we live out our priestly call. Not by running Father John out of the parish and saying Mass ourselves. Anyone who has read the documents of Vatican II (and not just some commentary on those documents) would understand that!

Along the same lines, just because I call myself "Bishop Green" does not make me a bishop! Just because I call myself "King Clint I", I am not a king! Just because I call myself "Doctor Green", that does not make me a doctor! In the same way, just because some woman calls herself "Priest" or "Deacon", that does not make her a priest or a deacon! Were there female deacons? Yes, probably. Were they ordained? No. Do some basic research and find the commissioning rite for female deacons (just google it!) and you will see that it differs in significant ways from the rite of ordination of a deacon from the same time period. Further, there were no female priests or bishops. The Church has ruled on that, and it is a done deal.

I feel very sorry for the folks like the author who are so caught up in a desperate quest for power and authority that they refuse to see the falsehood of their statements. I hope that, someday, she and so many liker her, will simply accept graciously that the world does not revolve around them, nor does the Church. I hope that they will accept that they do not know everything and just because they believe something should be so, that does not mean that it really is so!

The Holy Father is correct. Without priests, there would be no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there is no Church. Without the Church, there is no salvation. Priests have been through such a tough time in the last few years because of the scandal and sin of a small minority of their brothers. I am thrilled that the Holy Father has decided to dedicate this year to priests in the hope that we can attract attention to the good things that they are doing, the absolute necessity of their ministry, and the need we have to attract more young men (and older ones too!) to the ordained priesthood. There is much hope as the numbers of ordinations worldwide are increasing and in many dioceses in the US those numbers are increasing. Hopefully, this year dedicated to the priest will encourage us to pray and work for an increase in vocations to the priesthood.

God bless our priests and seminarians! May the Lord reward them for their sacrifice and the good that they do, despite people who hold them, and their ministry and vocation, in contempt.

Your theology is stunted and amputated, at best, and betrays a complete misunderstanding or rejection of Catholic beliefs relating Jesus and the Priesthood.

Nicole,

Sorry, but I'm afraid the Pope knows more about the priesthood than you'll ever know about anything in your life for the rest of your life. Please become better educated before attempting to publish anything about the Church in the future.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI and our Clergy

I find this article particularly offensive in a supposedly Catholic newspaper. First, it's analysis is really based upon linguistic and simplistic historical interpretations. Second, it's demeaning to the pope and priests. Third, it's demeaning to every Catholic out there who has always believed themselves to be ministers and coworkers in the Church. Let us ponder who helped to build the structures of the Church that are currently being ripped apart, closed and abandoned for "more modern" attitudes about Church. Let us ponder anew why people don't anymore? It is the loss of sacredness that this article implicitly attacks that is at the root of it. Meanwhile, more concretely, think of the churches regular folks built, maintained, cleaned etc. Think of the volunteers and Board members working side by side with the priests and religious. Were the laity of the prior to Vatican II witless and didn't minister? Does the author really think we are witless that and present witless to think that the very same Gospels that she alludes to don't also differentiate between apostles and disciples? That they aren't built upon the Jewish traditions, including priesthood in the Old Testament? Does she believe that we are so stupid that we don't understand how to manipulate simplistic history of complex phenomenon to fit and promote a paradigm of church and world that is seductively appealing to self instead of promoting a church and world that worships God. Even if she does, it is the editors who bear responsibility and, ultimately accountability, for such and an uncharitable, unChristian and unCatholic article.

Applause from central Pennsylvania, Nicole!

Knowing the often nasty history of things we hold dear and have come to depend upon can be very discouraging and frightening. Fortunately, we are coming to learn through scholars such as yourself that truth is often found outside of the confines of the Vatican. And we are all made better for it, even when it hurts to hear it.

Aldus

So honest, truthful, and to the point Nicole! Continue telling the truth!

What utter rubbish.

First of all,Nichole, the Catholic Church settled the issue of "sola scriptura" centuries ago. It's a heresy, dear. Scripture means what the Church says it means. We don't interpret Holy Writ on our own, the Church interprets it. We are to think with the mind of the Church.

Secondly, the Church has always believed in a priesthood, anchored in the office of bishop ("episcopus"). Priests were ordained and vested with a share in the bishop's priestly authority (they were granted "faculties")as the local, regional, or civic Church became larger than one man could handle. Paul's disciple Timothy was a bishop. Some bishops and priests and deacons had wives and were known by their husbands' titles. There is no evidence that women were ever ordained.

And then, of course, you proof-text as capably as a Protestant Fundamentalist. What you record the Council as saying is certainly true. Are you alledging, however, that the Council itself was laying the groundwork for the end of the cultic/professional (I'm sure you can pick your own term with the same adeptness with which you've chosen to ignore the living Tradition of the Church)priesthood? Read what the Council had to say ABOUT the ordained ministry, not just what it had to say about lay ministry. No one denies that all Christians have a ministry, every last one of them. It remains a fact that the papacy has a different ministry than I do, the bishop has a different ministry than I do, the priest and the deacon have different ministries than I do. You seem to be alledging that we can do without the pope, the bishop, the priest and the deacon. That is, again, heresy. To the apostles alone, not the disciples in general, was given the power and the authority to absolve from sin and to confect the Holy Sacrifice. That's what the Holy Father meant. There would be an end to the Eucharist as we know it because there would be no one to consecrate It.

Nicole, judging by your article and some of the responses (for example, "Brother" Damian was actually "FATHER" Damian, very much a priest, thank you; St. Francis a deacon, very much a part of the historic three-ordered ministry; and Mother Teresa was a woman and thus ineligible for ordination), you could stand a good solid remedial class in catechesis. This is where we HAVE failed, as a Church: teaching rightly and truthfully.

This is an example of utter nonsense. The priesthood was established by Jesus Christ himself in the Gospel of John. The author's understanding of the priesthood is definitely lacking. This piece of work has no business in a Catholic publication. I am pretty sure His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI knows more about theology than Ms. Sotelo would ever know even if she lived a hundred lifetimes.

A typically irreverent thought came to me as I grappled with the "--no Eucharist, no mission, and even no church--" statement and it is this: "and even no POPE."

As Michelle Arnold says:

"Perhaps what is bothering you is that there is an incredible arrogance for a young Catholic to lecture the Pope on the history of the priesthood and the Church. Joseph Ratzinger, even before he was elected pope, has been reputed to have one of the finest theological minds of his generation and to have forgotten more about the history and theology of the Church than most of us combined will ever know. Whatever the merits of the argument Ms. Sotelo makes, it is undermined by the enormous presumption with which she presents her argument.

As for the merits of her argument, I am unconvinced that there are any. She does not distinguish between the ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood. She confuses the Christian ministerial priesthood with Christian service. She demonstrates a quasi-Protestant understanding of early Church history. She does not indicate any familiarity with Catholic sacramental theology. Rather than lecture the Pope, I would recommend to her that she consider studying what the Church teaches on these issues."

I have to agree with Ms. Arnold here. It is arrogant for you to assume that you know more than the pope on pretty much anything theological.

Articles like this are exactly why there needs to be a Year of the Priest. The author claims to have read the documents of the Second Vatican Council. So, I guess she must have missed that part where it states that the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers are different. Attempts to make everyone the same are what calls for this year. If the ordained priesthood is so unnecessary for the Church and the Eucharist, why then to all these NCR women want to be part of it??

I have no clue why the h*** you call yourself Catholic. This rag of filth is NOT Catholic. We MUST have priests to have the Eucharist. The Apostles were the original Bishops of the Church. Anyone who has spent a year in CCD should know this. The structure of the Church has been there from the begining. Pope Clement wrote about it in 80 AD, 20 years after the death of St. Peter the first Pope. Pope Clement I "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers.(Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). 20 years after that Ignatius of Antioch wrote "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a priest]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). So how on Earth, someone who claims to be a Catholic (Which you are not, by what you write, you have technically sepertaed yourself from the Church becuase you dismiss the teachings of the Church) write that that we do not need priests. I'm giving my life to Christ and his Church so there are people to give out the sacraments, of which two of the most important, Confession and the Blessed Sacrament, must be done by priests. It's not because I am better then anyone else, I'm definitly not. However, as priest I will have that power to transform bread and wine to the Body of Christ. The center of our faith is Christ, Christ IS the Eucharist. So without the priests and Bishops, we would not have Christ in our presence like we do. I say you need to stop writing anything about the faith until you KNOW the faith.

Btw, this is why Sola Sciptura is against Scriptura
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).

Please rename this column.
Many, many, many of the "Young voices" I know are appalled at the majority of opinions expressed by the authors of this column, supposedly in the name of the young. Or, perhaps, limit commenting to the young. I suspect you will quickly find a vast gulf between the authors and their readers.

Bravo, bravo, bravo!
YES!!!!!

Please watch the tone of this discussion.
While one can argue this matter, the two sides deserve their hearing. The issue comes down to this: does the definition and nature of the term "Presbyter" found in both the scriptures and tradition, equal that of an "ordained priest." Historically, most scholars believe that projecting these two as one and the same is not accurate. The idea of equating Eucharist with the sacrifice of the priest comes after the first (perhaps second?)century. Is there a similarity and correlation between presbyter and priest? Yes. Therefore, both Nicole and Pete the Greek have a basis for their arguments. Neither one is irreverent, illogical, or arrogant.
The Church is the Body of Christ. As such, she participates in mystery of Christ. By setting the Holy Spirit in the Church and in the world, God's will is not a static reality that we can fully comprehend. Therefore, there will always be disagreements. Let us disagree in a spirit of charity.

I am 23 years old. I suppose that qualifies me as a "young voice," and as such I have something to say regarding this column, purportedly by a fellow "young voice":

This is heresy, and regarding this there can be no doubt.

The author commits a number of serious errors, ranging from the provocative statement that "Jesus was not focused on priesthood," when in fact His very act of taking flesh was ordered to offering that same Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity upon the cross (a priestly act in the superlative degree), to the even more dubious claim that holy orders were conferred on women, a doctrine to which the Church has never subscribed and has not the power to declare.

The author also asserts that there is no longer a need for a priesthood, which she makes out to be something of a novel aberration that arose after Jesus' departure from this world. Quite the contrary, a cursory glance at the Gospels reveals that Jesus instituted the Apostles as priests the night before He suffered and died, then confirmed their ministry at His Ascension and also by sending the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost.

As to the argument that there is no longer a need for priests because there is no further need for sacrifice, I can at least say that Jesus' one sacrifice upon the cross is indeed sufficient. But I would remind the author that this same sacrifice is re-presented (not "represented," mind you) by God's ordained ministers at each Mass. Now just as our Hebrew brothers and sisters have a share in the one Passover of the Israelites by their partaking in the Passover they celebrate each year, so we Catholics have a share in the merits of Christ's "Paschal" sacrifice by our partaking of the Eucharist; but if the Eucharist is not the re-presentation of this same sacrifice, then we have not got that share in His merits and are not sanctified by it.

In sum, Miss Sotelo would do well to consult her Bible, her Catechism, and the wealth of conciliar documents before passing judgment on the priesthood.

Best one yet, Nicole!

Nicole- Keep up the good work! It is people like you who help me (a 60 year old cradle Catholic) stay in this church, although I'm sure that many of your respondents would tell me, as they have told you, that we're not really Catholics. I respect the right of the "right wing" to have their own points of view, and I would ask for the same respect from them. The fundamentalist sees the world as black and white, while those more open minded see many shades and nuances. The good part is that we can (at least so far) all sit in the same church and worship together despite our differences.
My favorite quotation is from Demello"Certainty is the sin of bigots, terrorists and Pharisees. Compassion makes us think we may be wrong."

I wouldn't accept this article from a high school sophomore in religion class. Is this the level of scholarship among our young people? I choose to believe that this is ignorance rather than deliberate misrepresentation of scripture and the documents of Vatican II. God save us from writers of this calibre and the editors who publish them!

Hi I am a Catholic "young voice" about to turn twenty. I find this offensive and historically inaccurate. The evidence we have for the establishment of the priesthood in the earliest days of the Church is inreffutable. Read the Bible. In acts of the apostles, note how it is the ordained apostles, specifically Peter, in charge of the council of Jerusalem. We see how they layed their hands and ordained people as well.

You have read neither the documents of Vatican II, church history, nor the Bible to come up with a ridiculous case against the faith such as this. Please humble yourself and stop attacking our faith.

I am utterly confused as to why this article is anti-Catholic. Nicole, you remind all of us that each of us, as children of God, has a priestly mission to bring God to others through our lives...and anyone who has learned about the beginnings of the Church immediately after Jesus' death knows that we didn't have "priests" as we do today- not right away. The pope is not the Church. The Church is much bigger than the magisterium inside of it.

Look! Face it people, the priesthood/episcopacy was instituted by Christ. The statement "without priestly ministry, there would be no Eucharist, no mission and even no church" is just simple logic. Priests are the only ones that can {validly not just licitly} consecrate the host and chalice. That is how we have the Eucharist and the Eucharist is the spiritual center of our faith.

Notice that it does not imply the possibility of no priests existing. Nor does it say anything against the priesthood we all have a share of.

On top of that I think Nicole is ignorant about the intimate relationship between the Church and Christ and the Eucharist and Christ. I don't see how someone can be just soooo wrong about everything. Nicole needs to sit down with someone with true understanding of her faith, a good mentor, perhaps a priest and become a disciple of the True Faith, rather than a leader her own cult of her own beliefs.

Look! Face it people, the priesthood/episcopacy was instituted by Christ. The statement "without priestly ministry, there would be no Eucharist, no mission and even no church" is just simple logic. Priests are the only ones that can {validly not just licitly} consecrate the host and chalice. That is how we have the Eucharist and the Eucharist is the spiritual center of our faith.

Notice that it does not imply the possibility of no priests existing. Nor does it say anything against the priesthood we all have a share of.

On top of that I think Nicole is ignorant about the intimate relationship between the Church and Christ and the Eucharist and Christ. I don't see how someone can be just soooo wrong about everything. Nicole needs to sit down with someone with true understanding of her faith, a good mentor, perhaps a priest and become a disciple of the True Faith, rather than a leader her own cult of her own beliefs.

Nicole's article on priesthood is honest and certainly has every bit of validity on the very nature of Catholic priesthood. The venom that comes from the far right wing fundamentalist Catholic responses is typically ignorant, filled with hatred and threatened by facts of history that are simply irrefutable. Well done, Nicole. Your voice is both welcomed and appreciated. Christ would back you up on your research and I hope you continue to express the true historical identity of what it means to be a Catholic Christian.

"...But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" Luke 18:8.

The sheer level of dillusion in this article is truly astounding, and I say that with all sincerity.