A commentator, Gonzalo from Chile, was kind enough to leave a long comment yesterday on the previous post, on the topic of priestly order in the early Church. Because my answer is very long, I preferred to dedicate a post to it.

Dear Gonzalo:

Thanks for your comment. You say: “It’s a shame that your refutation is full of errors and supreme ignorance about the early Church, because knowing you, I don’t think you do it with bad intentions.”As you understand, I’m not going to enter into a “who knows more about Scripture” contest, so I’ll focus on the specific issues you touch on.

0) You say: “In it [in the Church] there were many positions such as the diaconate, the presbytery (or elder in its correct translation), the bishop, the teachers, the prophets, etc.“

Well, based on that, if you read the New Testament in Greek, you would also have to say that the “correct” translation of deacon is servant, “bishop” is overseer, and “prophet” is spokesperson or proxy, in the sense that it is the first dictionary meaning of those Greek words.

However, since I am a translator, I will explain to you an essential principle of translation: in all languages, there are various registers of language, which determine the interpretation that must be given to homophonous words like these. If we were talking about the domestic sphere and we found διακονος, we would translate servant or servant. However, in a specifically religious and Christian field, the correct translation is “deacon”, since it refers to a specific ministry of the Church. Likewise, επισκοπος should be translated as “bishop,” πρεσβυτερος as “presbyter,” and προφήτης or נְבִיא as “prophet.”Translating these terms in the NT in another way implies either ignoring the proper register of the language or introducing an ideology foreign to it.

1) You say: “The service they provided was an absolute donation to their brothers, in which it even took their own lives many times.”.

Yes. Like now. And, as happens now, there were those who fulfilled it better and those who fulfilled it worse.

2) You say: “This service was not a “vocation like a calling”, it was the entire community who chose and appointed them to the position, a typical example of this: Augustine of Hippo”.

It is a statement contrary to practically every page of the New Testament.Ministries in the Church (and in Israel) have always been a vocation from God. And regardless of whether a bishop is chosen, the community is choosing, whether it is hereditary succession in the case of kings or anything else, the tasks in the Church always involve a call from God. Literally hundreds of texts can be cited: “We act as messengers of Christ, inasmuch as God himself exhorts through us” (2 Cor 5:20).”As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Having said this, he breathed on them and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained” (Jn 20:21-22).

It is always God who sends, who chooses, who calls, even if it is the Church that, at its request, confers the sacrament. As for the concrete form, we all know that it has varied greatly according to the times and according to the various ministries. It is not true that the oldest form is election by the entire community.Saint Paul tells Titus, whom he himself had ordained bishop: “The reason I left you in Crete was so that you could finish organizing what was missing and establish presbyters in each city as I commanded you” (Tt 1:5). Simply, for each situation the Church has determined the best way to act (today, for example, the Pope is elected by cardinals and many abbots, abbesses and religious superiors are elected by friars or nuns). That, clearly, is secondary.

3) You say: “In the early Church, there was no one in charge, for example the Bishop, and the others quietly obeyed. It was the entire community, gathered around the breaking of bread, in charge of its own destiny.”.

That statement comes from current ideologies (well, actually from ideologies from fifty years ago).If you actually read the New Testament, what you find is something different. Firstly, because theologically the Church is not in charge of its own destiny. To say otherwise is an atrocity in theology and spiritual life. It is God who leads the Church and his ways are not our ways.

In second place, Saying that there was no one in charge in the early Church is like admitting that you have never read the New Testament.: “Obey and submit to your leaders, for they are concerned for your good, knowing that they are responsible” (Heb 13:17). Saint Paul also speaks of “the power that the Lord gave us to build, not to destroy” (2 Cor 10,8; 13,10), he said “I have enough freedom in Christ to command you what is appropriate” (Phm 1,8) and expected “obedience” (Flm 1,21). And he says the same about those who “preside over you in the Lord (literally in Greek, “they are above you”) and admonish you (1 Thes 5:12).

We could give hundreds of examples from the Fathers of the Church, but to avoid tiring we will only give one, of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostles who died in the year 107 and transmits the most primitive doctrine that we know after the New Testament (since it is contemporary with it). Saint Ignatius, in his Letter to the Magnesians, praises deacon Soción because “he submits to his bishop as to the grace of God, and to the college of priests as to the law of Jesus Christ” and clearly indicates the three degrees of the sacrament of orders “…under the presidency of the bishop, who occupies the place of God; and of the presbyters, who represent the college of the apostles; with the deacons performing the deacons….” And it teaches that the obedience to the bishop is obedience to Christ himself: “It is necessary that you do not despise the young age of your bishop, but, seeing in him the power of God the Father, you pay him all reverence. Thus I have learned that your holy priests do not despise his youthful condition, which is obvious, but, as prudent in God, they are obedient to him, or rather, not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, who is the bishop or supervisor of all. Therefore, for the honor of him who has loved us, it is appropriate to obey without any kind of pretense, because it is not this or that bishop that we see who would be tried to deceive, but rather the deception would be directed against the invisible bishop; that is, in this case, it is no longer against a mortal man, but against God, to whom even what is hidden is evident.

You say: “I repeat for the umpteenth time, the charges WERE NOT TO COMMAND BUT TO SERVE, and never by force (neither psychological nor even less “vis”).”

I think, honestly, that you don’t understand what authority is in the Church. Thinking that “serving” excludes “commanding” is an ideological position foreign to two thousand years of Christianity and the previous centuries of the Old Testament. Authority, among Christians, has always been considered a service. If the bishop does not govern, he is being unfaithful to the service he must provide to the Church..

The best example is Christ. He “humbled himself and took the form of a slave,” he washed the feet of the apostles, he is the Servant of Yahweh that Isaiah announced, and yet he constantly shows his authority in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, but I say to you…”, “he who listens to me, listens to God,” “I give you a new command,” “all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” etc. It is evident that commanding and serving are not only not exclusive, but both are part of the example that Christ gave us.

Regarding “strength,” which you do not define, Saint Paul says: “we are willing to punish all disobedience” (2 Cor 10,6). It is also known that the first case of excommunication in the Church it is due to Saint Paul (1 Cor 5,2-6).

4) You say: “Until well into the 3rd century, he was NEVER designated to these “service” positions (just like those of today) in the code of sacrament of “Order.””.

For these things, it is good to have a translator on hand. Today we talk about “priestly ministry”, right?Well then, “ministry” It is a word that comes from Latin and means precisely “service”.So yes, “just like those of today.”

On the other hand, the New Testament shows again and again the laying on of hands which was done to bishops, presbyters and deacons (among others) (Acts 6,6; 14,22; 1 Tim 4,14, 1 Tim 1,6). Just as it is done today in ordinations, because the episcopacy, the priesthood and the diaconate are not human works, but a special presence of Christ among us, through the Holy Spirit.

By the way, the affirmation that the priestly order is not a sacrament is a denial of dogmas of faith and places you outside the Church.

5) “In the Early Church, there was no difference between believers, nor castes chosen and separated from the rest because they were the “elect””

It is enough to read the New Testament a little to see how erroneous this phrase is. Was there no difference between believers?Let us listen to Saint Paul: “And thus God placed them in the Church, first as apostles; secondly as prophets; thirdly as teachers; then, miracles; then, the gift of healing, assistance, government, diversity of languages. Are they all apostles? Or all prophets?All teachers?All with the power of miracles?All with healing charisma?Do they all speak languages?Do they all interpret?”(1 Cor 12,28-30).

In the communities of the first centuries there were, as now, “ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6), “ministers of God” (2 Cor 6:4), “ambassadors of Christ” (2 Cor 5:20), “servants of Christ and administrators of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1).

own Christ, who had a large number of disciples, chose twelve with a special mission in the Church. It is clear that he did not know about the “castes chosen and separated from the rest.”

6) You say: “The creation of “order” came from the Emperor. Just as there was the “Equestrian Order” and the “Senatus Order”, those in charge of the new official religion of the Empire (after the Edict of Milan) had to be at the service of the Emperor (obviously), which is why they were “annexed” to the bureaucratic apparatus of the Empire and for this a new “Ordo” was created.”.

This idea is so absurd that it makes you blush. Let’s review a little history. Constantine’s Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the official state religion but rather proclaimed the tolerance of Christianity in the Empire, ending persecution. Christianity became the official religion of the Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica, more than half a century later. Do you remember the year of the Edict of Thessalonica?Very well, 380, with the emperor Theodosius.

Well then, one hundred and thirty years ago, in 252, Pope Cornelius, in his letter to Fabian, already spoke of the major and minor orders: presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers and ostiaries. This clearly shows that the reality of the priestly order, even with its finer and more technical divisions, was a reality long before the persecutions in the Church ended. The fact that Latin words with other meanings were used in the civil sphere is simply due to the fact that existing words were used, logically. This use does not authorize in any case to assimilate the priesthood to political categories of the Empire.

The proof that it was not a political category is simple.As everyone knows, along with the priestly order, of a sacramental type, other, non-sacramental orders existed in the early Church: the order of catechumens, the order of virgins, the order of widows… I suppose that not even the wildest imagination will defend that, by using the word “order” for these groups, we should think that it was the emperor of Rome who instituted the order of the poor widows or of thehumble catechumens in the Church as part of the “bureaucratic apparatus of the Empire.”This shows, beyond a doubt, that the idea that the word “order” indicates that the priesthood was a political office is a erroneous, absurd deduction without any real basis.

7) You say: “In the Early Church, there was never an association between presbyter and priest. They were different functions in different situations. Neither historically nor biblically is this foundation sustainable.”.

First of all, a clarification: in the Catholic Church both priests and bishops are priests.

In any case, again it is a statement totally foreign to the texts of the Early Church. An example, among the various that we could give, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus Romanus, in the second half of the 2nd century (two hundred years before the Edict of Thessalonica), says, in the liturgy that establishes for the ordination of the bishop: “O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,…who preordained from the beginning the race of the righteous according to Abraham, instituting princes and priests and not leaving your sanctuary without ministers;…pour out now that Power that comes from you, the sovereign Spirit that you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ and that He poured out on your holy Apostles, who established the Church…grant to this your servant whom you have chosen for the episcopacy the power to feed your flock, to exercise your sovereign priesthood without reproach, serving you day and night, so that he may favor your countenance and offer you the gifts of your holy Church, and so that, by virtue of the spirit of the sovereign priesthood, have power to forgive sins according to your commandment, to distribute charges according to your precept, to loose every bond by virtue of the power that you gave to the Apostles…” I think it is something very clear: the Christian priesthood of bishops and presbyters is a true priesthood, prefigured by the priesthood of the Old Covenant and is destined for the worship of God, for preaching, for the sacraments and for the government of the Church.

By the way, your statement is heretical and, again, places you outside the Church.

8) “Most of the various servants in the Early Church were married, and they earned their daily bread, each working at their own jobs..”

Invention, because neither you nor anyone else has data about it, we know of a few (very few) examples, which do not allow us to comment on majorities. In any case, it is somewhat irrelevant. We all know that priestly celibacy is of a disciplinary nature. Today, there are married Catholic priests in the East and in Anglican Catholic Ordinariates.

As for earning his daily bread, Saint Paul already explains that he works because he wants to, but he would have the right to be supported by his brothers for the service he renders to them. He says: “Do you not know that the ministers of the temple live from the temple? That those who serve the altar participate in the altar? In the same way, the Lord has also ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:13-14). By the way, observe the relationship between the mission of the Christian apostles and the mission of the temple priests.

Therefore, Saint Paul clearly defends the possibility and opportunity for priests to live off the help of the faithful, although he, personally, would not want to be burdensome to anyone. (“I have not made use of any of those rights” (1 Cor 9:15). It is very likely that the priests of the new Catholic Ordinariates will have to have a civil job, because they will be small communities that cannot support them, but it is evident that it is not ideal, because it does not allow the priest to dedicate himself completely to his mission.

9) You say: “The Church not a regiment”

True, it’s not a truck or a coffee maker either.

You say: “It is not a “place to obey””

Fake. We have already shown above that obedience is something constant in the Church. And something predictable in the successors of Him who “learned by suffering to obey” and who came to do the will of the Father.

You say: “It is a community of believers that gathers to praise and bless the Risen Lord in whom the Father has given us eternal life.”.

I don’t see where you get the idea that believing, praising, or blessing are in any way contradictory to obeying.

10) You say: “Finally, I see that you want to justify with arguments based on modern categories of thought and contemporary worldviews, things, situations and socio-religious realities that are far from the true intentionality they had more than 20 centuries ago, as if at that time everything was the same as today.”.

If you allow me to say so, that is what you do, with ideas of democracy, caste, rejection of authority, etc.which are clearly typical of forty or fifty years ago. In any case, everyone tends to introduce their own ideas into Scripture. It is inevitable, unless, somewhere, today you can access the way of thinking of those who wrote the books of Scripture. And, luckily for us, it is so. That place is called the Church and that way of thinking is called Tradition.

because you you ignore both the teaching of the Church and its Tradition when interpreting Scripture, you are at the mercy of the latest fashionable ideology and, again and again, you show yourself unable to understand what Scripture evidently says, as we have seen in all of the above.

You say: “Why continue?Just tell you that first you have to study”.

Yes, it’s good advice, I recommend it.

You say: “Second, study a postgraduate degree in Bible, I recommend it, and in addition there are no world-class biblical scholars within the ultra conservatives because or else Bruno, this, in addition to ignorance, is absolutely missing the truth”.

I understand that by “ultraconservatives” you mean people who have the Catholic faith, that is, Catholics. AND all the great biblical scholars have been Catholics.Non-Catholics may have good intentions and a lot of erudition, but they lack something essential to be able to be true experts of the Bible: the Catholic faith, without which the Scripture cannot be adequately understood.

You say: “and Don José María Castillo, has a great theological reputation here in Latin America, and in Spain as well. Ask at the University of Granada”

If I do not doubt that he ex-P.Castle have great reputation. What happens is that it has it among the atheists at the University of Granada and among non-Catholics. Where he has no reputation is among Catholics, as is logical given his sad habit of denying the Catholic faith.

The Bible is only understood from Tradition and in accordance with the Magisterium.Time and time again, the facts prove it. In that sense, a First Communion catechism child who reads the Bible with the faith of the Church understands it better than anyone who reads it without that faith, no matter how much knowledge he or she has.

Author: Bruno Moreno
Source: his Blog in Infocatólica