Part II Chapter I §2: Christ a True Priest

§2: Christ a True Priest

SECTION 2 CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST ” Priest ” and ” Sacrifice ” being correlative terms, the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is a logical and necessary corollary of His sacrifice on the Cross. Sacred Scripture expressly confirms this deduction. The concept of ” priesthood ” embraces two essential elements, viz.: (i) unction or ordination, and (2) the offering of sacrifice. To these may be added, as an integral part, sacerdotal prayer. In the case of Christ, moreover, the Bible lays special stress (3) on the eternity of His priesthood. We shall develop these considerations in the form of three separate theses. Thesis I: Christ’s unction or ordination to the office of high priest took place at the moment of His Incarnation. This thesis voices the common teaching of Catholic divines. Proof. If, as we shall show in our next thesis, Christ was truly “a priest according to the order of Melchisedech,,, 1 His priesthood must have begun simultaneously with His Incarnation, i. e., at the moment in which the Divine Logos assumed human flesh in the womb of the Virgin. The Divine Logos could not have been a priest belHeb. V, 6; VI, 20. 127 fore His Incarnation, because then He was not yet the Godman. Nor was He anointed or consecrated by any special act subsequent to His Incarnation. Hence His ordination must have coincided with the inception of the Hypostatic Union. This view is confirmed by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Heb. X, 5 : ” Ideo ingrediens mundutn 1 dicit: Hostiam et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem aptasti mihi — Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me.” 8 Here the ” fitting of a body ” for the sacrifice of the Cross, and consequently the beginning of Christ’s priesthood, is represented as coincident .with His “coming into the world,” i. e., His conception. In the fifth chapter of the same Epistle the Apostle emphasizes the fact that * every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God,* and then declares that Christ did not ordain Himself, but was ” called by God.” Heb. V, 4 sq. : “Nee quisquam sutnit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo 4 tamquam Aaron; sic et Christus non semetipsum clariUcavit, ut pontifex fieret* sed qui locuttts est ad eutn [= Pater] : Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te — Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest; but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”* The “call” to the priesthood which Christ received from His Father was 2 etopxtfiepos els r6v K6

the command to redeem the human race. This command went into effect at the moment of His conception. Consequently, Christ’s priesthood began simultaneously with the unio hypostatics A third argument for our thesis is based on the Saviour’s proper name, Christus, which means the Anointed One KttT* €$oxqv.7 Whereas the Levites of the Old Testament were anointed to the ministry by an accidental unction with visible oil,8 the Godman Jesus Christ, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is substantially anointed with the invisible oil of Divinity. This substantial unction, on account of the object and purpose of the Redemption, stands in intimate relationship to the priestly function which He exercised in offering the sacrifice of the Cross, and therefore the Hypostatic Union as such must be regarded as Christ’s substantial ordination to the priesthood. Some of the Fathers appear to teach that our Lord’s ordination took place before His Incarnation. It is to be noted, however, that their manner of expression is distinctly proleptic. What they mean is, that it was by His Incarnation that the not yet incarnate Logos was constituted a priest. Certain other Fathers seem to regard Christ’s baptism in the Jordan as the beginning of His priesthood. Rightly understood, however, these Fathers do not assert that Christ became a high priest when He received baptism, but merely that he exercised His priesthood for the first time on that occasion. There is a clear-cut distinction between an office and the exercise of its functions; the former differs from the latter as potency differs from act.9 7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 9 Cfr. Petavius, D$ Incam., XII, pp. 22$ sq. 3 and xz. 8 Cfr. Exod. XXIX, x sqq.; Ler. VIII, x sqq.

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER Thesis II: During His terrestrial life Christ was a true high priest who exercised His sacerdotal functions by offering sacrifice and prayer. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Council of Trent defines : “Quoniam sub priori Testamento teste Apostolo Paulo propter levitici sacerdotii imbecillitatem consummatio non erat, oportuit Deo Patre misericordiarum ita ordinante sacerdotem alium secundum ordinem Melchisedech surgere D. N. Iesum Christum, qui posset omnes, quotquot sanctificandi essent, consummare et ad perfectum adducere.” Anglice : “Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God the Father of mercies so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified/’ 10 The heretical antithesis of this dogma is the Socinian teaching that the priesthood of our Lord was in no sense an earthly but exclusively a heavenly priesthood.11 a) That the priesthood of our Divine Lord 10 Cone. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. x. 11 Cfr. F. Socinus, De Chris to (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938.) Servafore, P. II, c. 15. was really and truly an earthly priesthood can easily be proved from Sacred Scripture.

i32 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER to the priesthood of Melchisedech. Therefore, Christ is the holiest, the greatest, the most perfect, in fact the sole High Priest, and He exercised His priesthood in the perfect sacrifice of the Cross.17 b) But the sacrifice of the Cross was not the only sacerdotal function performed by our Divine Redeemer. He also officiated as High Priest when, at the Last Supper, He instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and when He pronounced the sublime prayer for His disciples recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of St. A priest does not always pray in his official capacity as priest; some of his prayers are strictly private and personal. It is only when he pronounces portions of the sacrificial rite, such as the Mass, or liturgical prayers intimately connected therewith, as those of the Breviary, that his prayer assumes a sacerdotal or hieratic character. Christ’s prayer for His disciples was a strictly sacerdotal or hieratic act, because of its intimate relation to the sacrifice of the Cross. The same is true of the prayers which He uttered at the crucifixion. It is rather difficult to draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between strictly hieratic and purely private prayers in the case of our Divine Lord, because His whole interior life was inseparably interwoven with His mission as the Saviour of mankind, and therefore also with His priesthood. However, we may apply the term “private” in a wider sense to those 17 The Patristic argument for our hood may be best studied in St. thesis is developed by Pesch, op, ext., Thomas, Summa Theologico, 3a, qu. pp. 292 sq. The teaching of the 22 art. 1. Scholastics on Christ’s earthly priest- 18 John XVII, 1-26. John. 18

prayers which He offered up, not for His Apostles, or the human race in general, but for Himself, in order to obtain personal favors from His Heavenly Father, as, for instance, when He asked on Mount Olivet that the chalice be removed from His lips,19 or when He petitioned for His own glorification. There is an essential difference between prayer and sacrifice, which should be emphasized here. Christ was able to pray for Himself, but He was not able to offer sacrifice for Himself. This has been clearly defined by the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) : ” If any one … assert that He [Christ] offered Himself as a .sacrifice for Himself, and not rather for us alone, (for He who knew absolutely no sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema.” 20 Thesis III: Christ’s priesthood continues everlastingly in Heaven. This proposition also embodies an article of faith. Proof. In Christology 21 we concluded from the eternity of Christ’s priesthood to the inseparability of the Hypostatic Union. Here we have to prove the antecedent. The eternity of Christ’s priesthood is an article of faith, because clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. But the manner in which He exercises His sacerdotal 19 Cfr. Heb. V, 7. Bannwart, n. 122).— On Christ’a SO “Si quis . • • dicit, quod pro praying cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoU, 99 obtulisset semttipsum oblationem, 3a, qu. 21 and L. Janssens, D§ et non potius pro nobis solis (non Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 720 sqq., enim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum Freiburg ioox. omnino nescivit), anathema sit,” ’ 21 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. Cone. Eph., can. xo (Dcnzinger- 74 sqq.

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER office in Heaven remains to be determined by theological reasoning. a) The eternity of our Lord’s priesthood is taught both directly and indirectly in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews. a) The Apostle expressly applies to Christ the Messianic verse : ” Thou art a priest for ever 22 according to the order of Melchisedfech.” 28 That ” for ever ” in this passage means eternity, not a parte ante but a parte post, and in the strict sense of the term, appears from St. Paul’s way of arguing in Heb. VII, I sqq., where he opposes our Lord’s ” everlasting priesthood ” to the temporal priesthood of the Levites. Moreover, he distinctly says in Heb. VII, 23 sq. : ” Alii quidem plures facti sunt sacerdotes, idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere; hie autem eo quod maneat in aeternum,2* setnpiternum habet sacerdotiutn 25 — And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue : but this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood.” P) Regarding the manner in which Christ exercises His eternal priesthood in Heaven, Revelation teaches us nothing beyond the fact that He is “always living to make intercession for us,” 28 which is a truly sacerdotal function, because, as St. Paul assures us, it bears an intimate relation to the sacrifice of the Cross. Hence we may 22 €ls rbv aluva- 25 dirapdfiarop ix9i i^l* kpw 88 Ps. CIX, 4. etyriv. rb fUvetv afirbv e/f rbw 2« Heb. VII, 25; Rom. VIII, 34. alwva*

conclude that our Lord’s intercession for us in Heaven consists in everlastingly asserting the sacrifice of the Cross. Cfr. Heb. VII, 24 sqq.: ” Sempiternum habet sacerdotium; unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum, semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis: talis enim21 decebat ut nobis esset pontifex28 … qui non habet necessitatem quotidie … hostias offerre; hoc enim fecit semel seipsum offerendo — [He] hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save for ever J:hem that come to God by him ; always living to make intercession for us. For it was befitting that we should have such a high priest … who needeth not daily … to offer sacrifices … for this he did once, in offering himself.” St. John, too, describes Christ’s heavenly intercession as intimately connected with and based upon the sacrifice of the Cross. Cfr. 1 John II, 1 sq.: ” Sed et si quis peccaverit, advocatum29 habemus apud Patrem Iesum Christum iustum; et ipse est propitiatio 80 pro peccatis nostris — But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is the propitiation for our sins.” The same Apostle in the Apocalypse represents Christ figuratively as a slain lamb, i . e., a transfigured sacrificial victim. Apoc. V, 6 : ” Et vidi … Agnum stantem tamquam occisum1 — And I saw … a Lamb standing as it were slain.” In this light St. Ambrose’s conception of the relation existing between Christ’s heavenly intercession and the marks of the five wounds in His glorified body, as indelible witnesses 27 y&p. 80 IKafffiSs ==» a sacrifice of pro28 dpxiepefr 2» *ap&K\r)Tov. pitiation.

of His bloody sacrifice, must appeal to us as profoundly significant: “He refused to relinquish the wounds which He had received for us, but preferred to take them with Him to Heaven, in order to exhibit [them] to His Heavenly Father [as] the purchase price of our liberty.” 82 b) The doctrine of Christ’s eternal priesthood in Heaven has given rise to three separate theological problems: ( offer a true sacrifice in Heaven? (y) How can His priesthood endure after the Last Judgment, when His intercession must of necessity cease? a) Theologians are not agreed as to whether Christ’s heavenly intercession for the human race is to be conceived as merely implicit (interpret ativa), or as explicit (formalis). The former view is held by Vasquez and Thomassin, the latter and more probable one by Petavius. As Christ actually prayed for us while on earth, there is no reason to assume that His continued intercession in Heaven is silent or merely implicit, — especially in view of the promise which He gave His Apostles that He would ask the Father to send them another Paraclete. Cfr. John XIV, 16: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete.” Why weaken the term ” ask ” or ” petition ” (rogare, Ipmav) to prop the 82 St. Ambrose, In Luc, X, n. ut Deo Patri nostra* pretia liberta170: Vulnera accepta pro nobis tis ostenderet. coelo inferre maluit, abolere noluit, CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 137 • doubtful hypothesis that His intercession is merely virCertain of the Fathers seem to contradict the view defended by Petavius. But the construction put upon their utterances by Vasquez and Thomassin is untenable. In reality these Fathers merely wish to emphasize the fact that the theandric prayer of Jesus has none of the defects necessarily inherent in purely human prayer, such as indigence, a feeling of helplessness and guilt, an appeal to mercy, etc. The theandric intercession of our heavenly Advocate is based upon the infinite satisfaction which He has given for us, and hence is in no wise an humble supplication for grace, but a confident assertion of His merits on behalf of those whotn He has redeemed. This -is one of the reasons why the Church does not pray or instruct her children to pray : ” Lord Jesus, intercede for us!” but: “Christ, hear us!” ” Christ, have mercy on us ! ” 88 P) Our second question, it may be well to premise, has nothing whatever to do with the Socinian error that Jesus offered no true sacrifice on earth but became the High Priest of humanity only after His Ascension into Heaven. Accepting the sacrificial character of His death, theologians merely ask: Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice for us in Heaven? Thalhof er 84 answered this question in the affirmative, and his view has been adopted by L. Zill85 and P. 83 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 84 Das Opfer des Alien und Neuen carnato, thes. 51, n. iii; De Lugo, De Bundes, pp. 201 sqq., Ratisbon 1870. tual? My st. Incarnationis, disp. 27, sect. 4, n. 61 sqq. ZtDer Brief an die Hebr&er, pp. 430 sqq., Mainz 1879.

i38 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER Schoulza.86 The purpose of these writers in taking the position they do is twofold: (i) to gain a basis for a reasonable explanation of the metaphysical essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and (2) to give a tangible content to the Scriptural teaching of Christ’s eternal priesthood. Thalhofer declares the formal element of sacrifice to consist, not in the exterior oblation of the victim, which is in some manner or other transformed, but solely in the interior disposition of the sacrificing priest. But this: theory is contrary to the common teaching of Catholic divines and does not square with certain generally admitted facts. Granted that the disposition of the sacrificing priest is the intrinsic and invisible forma, and consequently the most important part of a sacrifice; yet it can never supply the extrinsic physical form. Christ’s constant pointing to His wounds, of which Thalhofer makes so much, is merely a significant gesture which effects no intrinsic transformation of the kind strictly demanded by the notion of sacrifice. Zill attempted to construct a Scriptural basis for Thalhofer’s theory, but his deductions had already been substantially refuted by Tournely in his argument against Faustus Socinus.37 St. Paul, far from asserting that Christ offers sacrifice in Heaven, or that He continues His earthly sacrifice there, expressly declares that our Lord merely asserts ad modum interpellationis and forever the sacrifice He has once for all consummated on the Cross. This interpellation can in no wise be construed as a sacrifice.88 86 Liturgia Catholic a Fidei Magis- 88 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, tra, Insulis 1901. thes. 82; Pesch, PraeU Dogmata 87 Tournely, De Incarn., qu. 5» Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 300 sqq. art. 2; cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo Incar not o, p. 539.

EK mta% y) Xhere remains the third question: How 1^’* can Christ’s priesthood endure forever, since essence ’ anpbta after the Last Judgment not only the hypothetical ?raaj^ sacrifice construed by Thalhofer, but likewise His intercession for us must needs cease? sacrfc There can be no doubt whatever that our Lord’s n,wft priestly intercession in Heaven will end with the last ‘e’v°* Mass celebrated on earth. Nevertheless, His priesthood ^ wiH continue, in a threefold respect, (i) He will re^ main ” a priest for ever ” in dignity (secundum dignir4va; tat em) 9 because His sacerdotal character stands or falls with the Hypostatic Union, and consequently is indelible m>® and incapable of being lost.89 (2) Christ’s priesthood kff’F endures eternally in respect of its effectiveness (secunCta dum effectum), in so far as the fruits of the sacrifice of the Cross are unceasingly renewed in the grace and rift glory enjoyed by the Elect in Heaven.40 (3) Christ ^ t remains the eternal High Priest of humanity secundum affectum; for, while He does not offer up a perpetual ‘M sacrifice in the strict and proper sense of the term, He causes a sweet burnt-offering of unending adoration and $ thanksgiving to rise before the throne of the Most Holy ;i Trinity, — which is after all the ultimate purpose and en; end of all creation. ^ 88 Cfr. Thesis I, supra, pp. 127 sacrificii consequuntur. Finis autem 3i sqq. sacrificii quod Christus obtulit, non ^ 40 Cfr. St Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, fuerunt bona temporalia, sed qu. 22, art. 5 : * In officio sacerdotis aeterna, quae per eius mortem adiduo possunt considerori 1 primo qui’ piscimur.* L c, ad 2: ” Licet pasdem ipsa oblatio sacrificii, secundo sio et mors Christi de caetero non 1 ipsa sacrificii consummatio, quae sint iteranda, tamen virtus illius quidem consistit in hoc, quod Mi hostiae seme I oblatae permanet in Pro quibus sacrificium offertur, finem aeternum,” 10