Apologetics Help Needed, Please!!

(Update: I am leaving this at the top of the blog for a few days to keep it in view for those who visit the actual blog rather than read through an aggregator.)

I am debating someone about the priesthood right now. Several points were brought up (by me) first, but only one point was rebutted. The points I brought up were question and answer sessions during Mass, whether the Church would ever allow women to be ordained, and the ministerial priesthood in the early Church (as in, did it exist or not). Only the last point was rebutted, and I am HIGHLY skeptical of the answer and sources, especially since "McBrian, Richard" is one of them.

Other sources are Joseph Martos (Doors to the Sacred), Kenan Osborne ("A History of the Orained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church"), and a report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1976, the translation of which can be found in Origins (and was cited by - shudder - the WomenPriests group online). I think it's the report they did on whether or not the Bible definitively excludes women from the priesthood. (Of course, being Catholic, we should know better than to use sola Scriptura to defend a position, right?)

The person I'm debating this with is a Catholic, by the way. Just wanted to be clear about that. When I wrote, I quoted papal documents and the Catechism to support that women will never be ordained. But I didn't quote specific sources on the fact that Jesus gave us the priesthood, that the Apostles were the first priests, etc. I mean, it's a basic Catechism lesson in my girls' books! I learned it in the second grade!

However, I need help with finding resources to rebut this new line of argument, and I am turning to you, dear readers. (Passing this on to people who can help would be great, too!)

I'll give you the exact respose I received (aside from the email to which it was attached, which reveals who the person is). I'm trying to be vague about this to keep identities secret, but I'd really like to be able to answer these questions. (I'll be looking in my Catechism and Compendium today between school and baking.)

Here is the response:

It would be erroneous on our part to assume that the presently existing model of priesthood was the norm for ministry in the first century A.D. Though there is sometimes confusion in this matter, it really cannot be proven historically that ordained priesthood was a part of the Christian experience at that period of time. “The earliest Christian community contained a variety of ministries, but priesthood was not one of them.”[1]

The early Christian community used different names for their ministries, but none of them was specifically designated to describe the Christian priesthood of any individual. The Jesus priesthood described in the letter to the Hebrews (written by an unknown Christian) should be “understood in the light of the Old Testament.”[2] This is very easily explainable, knowing that the priesthood Jesus and his followers knew was the Jewish temple priesthood, which was quite different from today’s Catholic priesthood. “The Early Church did not use the liturgical or sacred title of “priest” [in Greek, hiereus; in Hebrew, cohen] for Church ministers. Even though this title was readily available, it was evidently shunned by the early Church for designation of its ministries. In the New Testament only the Jewish priests, Jesus [and only in Hebrews] and all of the baptized are called: hiereus.”[3]

Some of the New Testament names of ministry are: Apostle, The Twelve, Prophet, Teacher, Diakonoi (could be applied to women; the Greek is masculine, as well)[4], Father, Servant, Episcopes, Overseer, Presbyteros, Evangelist, etc. “If we look at the Pauline material, which is the oldest written material (but not the oldest in tradition), we find that there is scant attention to either episcopos or diakonos and absolutely none to presbyter.”[5] Let us just pause for a minute to explain some of the ministry names used in the New Testament, since today they tend to mean something different:

• Episcopes – probably of Greek-Christian origin signifying a title of office, oversight task. Men who performed the function of oversight were called episcopos: governor, officer, building inspector, director, temple inspector.
• Presbyteros– probably of Jewish-Christian origin signifying the leaders in the great families and clans of the Jewish nation. This particular title goes back to the times of the patriarchs. “The term, presbyter, as used in the Jewish world, did not include liturgical functions. It was not “priestly” in its connotation. It was rather leadership and service to the community that marked one as an elder.”[6]
• Diakonoi (Deacon) – served the internal needs of the community. If they were women they should be like men¾respectable, discreet, and reliable[7] (1 Timothy 3:8-13; Romans 16:1). “According to the witness of the New Testament, especially the Pauline epistles, women are associated with the different charismatic ministries (diaconies) of the Church (1 Cor 12, 4; I Tim 3, 11, cf.8); prophecy, service, probably even apostolate…without, nevertheless, being of the Twelve. They have a place in the liturgy at least as prophetesses (1 Cor 11,4).”[8]

There was no ordination rite, as we understand it today, that we can find in the New Testament (either for men or for women), but the priesthood we know today is a combination of different roles and ministries that we find in the New Testament. “It is not even clear, for example, that anyone in particular was commissioned to preside over the Eucharist in the beginning. Paul never mentions that he presided. In fact, he seems to have been little involved in the administration of sacraments (1 Corinthians 1:14-15). There is no explicit mention that any of the Apostles presided over the Eucharist. Indeed, there is no compelling evidence that they presided when they were present, or that a chain of ordination from Apostle to bishop to priest was required for presiding. Someone must have presided, of course, and those who did so presided with the approval of the community.”[9]

Before the end of the first century, some Christian writers likened Jesus’ death on the cross to a priestly sacrifice, and since then we can see a slow development of the priesthood idea in the Christian circles. It was not until the third century that those presiding over Eucharistic celebrations were perceived as priestly ministers. It was not until the patristic and middle ages that almost all those engaged in the official church ministries had to be priests. “Significantly, not until the year 1208 is there an official declaration that priestly ordination is necessary to celebrate the Eucharist (Innocent III, Profession of Faith Prescribed to the Waldensians), and then, more solemnly, by the Council of Florence (1439) and the Council of Trent (1563).”[10]

This, however, is beyond the scope of this short essay.

[1] Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred. P. 400
[2] McBrian, Richard. Catholiscism. P. 799.
[3] Osborne, Kenan. A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. P. 83
[4] Osborne, Kenan. A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. P. 43.
[5] Osborne, Kenan. A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. P. 44.
[6] Osborne, Kenan. A History of the Ordained Ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. P. 47.
[7] Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred. P. 406.
[8] The Pontifical Biblical Commission. English translation of this report can be found in Origins, v.6 (July 1, 1976) pp. 92-96.
[9] McBrian, Richard. Catholiscism. P. 801-802.

[10] McBrian, Richard. Catholiscism. P. 803.

*********************************

*********************************

None of this seems exactly right. It's as though it's clouded and geared, not towards discovering the truth (or Truth), but towards proving something already believed. I feel as though the purpose is to confuse rather than to enlighten.

To make something clear about my views on this, I'd like to add that I did, at one time, believe that women ought to be ordained, did not understand the difference between the ministerial priesthood and the layity's priesthood, and gradually did research to learn more about my faith. I have been educated quite a bit by Catholic Answers' site (for all ten years they've been there, believe it or not!). I try very hard to stick with those who don't dissent because I've learned that you can't be Catholic and refuse to accept the authority of the Church. (Not a good Catholic, anyway.) I also have learned a lot at the knee of Mother Angelica and her wonderful ministry. But I want to make it clear that oftentimes, when I searched for answers on something the Church teaches, I had to come to the hard truth that I wasn't in line with the Church. I sought to understand the teaching, and I seek daily to assent to Holy Mother Church. My own opinion hasn't anything to do with what I need to assent to. (Just ask me some time about my struggles with the death penalty!)

Help is appreciated, especially with understanding who these sources are, and, perhaps, where this essay came from, as I also suspect it is not his own. (Just a suspicion, and I'd be glad to admit I'm wrong if I am!)

Thank you in advance.