Nothing is more essential - Eucharist and Priesthood
It is affirmed, with the persuasion of proclaiming who-knows-what oracle, that by now the Church needs to alter its priestly ministry from its sacral phase to its existential phase. A “sacredly structured society”, is now in its twilight hours and a certain understanding of the cult of priesthood would be extemporaneous and not contemporary.
Here, we are faced with the first anomaly: that of linking the doctrine of the faith not to truth but to current events, changing tastes or, if we want, to “signs of the times,” the reading of which is at one’s discretion.
"Last Supper and the washing of the feet" (1220, miniature from "Evangeliarium of Speyer", Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek) Some say that history would suggest that if on the one hand the Christian community was born and developed from the Easter Christ, celebrated in the Eucharist, on the other hand it also assumed along the way a language and cultural structure, to not isolate itself as a sect, engaging in an imperial context, where priesthood was an important pillar of society. Now what would be needed, it is said, is to disconnect from this context and return to pastoral attention to mission and witness.
But is this really what history teaches? However much one can recognize in the priesthood a taking on of certain “priestly” symbolism, the reality of Christian priesthood was always perceived and operated in its unique novelty: the novelty of Christ, Supreme Priest, of the new alliance, author of the spiritual, heavenly and glorious Sacrifice, in which he gave of himself, one time for all, in the fulfillment and surpassing of the levitic cult. It is the doctrine of the Letter to the Hebrews, which in fact does not enjoy much esteem from those theologians of “decultization” – an obscene term – who want to attribute to the Letter a certain responsibility for the sacralizing concept of Christian ministry.
It is incorrect to incriminate and abhor the cult structure and sacrality of priesthood, which aims in intent and nature to keep a sense of God alive and encourage prayer; and it is wrong to define priestly structure and cult with purely exterior practices, without soul and truth and consider its alternative, “existential.” It devalues a fundamental element in the history of the ancient alliance and all that is connected to worship and cult.
Jesus himself, with his family, did not fail to take part in the religious observances of his people.
By Inos Biffi
Here, we are faced with the first anomaly: that of linking the doctrine of the faith not to truth but to current events, changing tastes or, if we want, to “signs of the times,” the reading of which is at one’s discretion.
"Last Supper and the washing of the feet" (1220, miniature from "Evangeliarium of Speyer", Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek) Some say that history would suggest that if on the one hand the Christian community was born and developed from the Easter Christ, celebrated in the Eucharist, on the other hand it also assumed along the way a language and cultural structure, to not isolate itself as a sect, engaging in an imperial context, where priesthood was an important pillar of society. Now what would be needed, it is said, is to disconnect from this context and return to pastoral attention to mission and witness.
But is this really what history teaches? However much one can recognize in the priesthood a taking on of certain “priestly” symbolism, the reality of Christian priesthood was always perceived and operated in its unique novelty: the novelty of Christ, Supreme Priest, of the new alliance, author of the spiritual, heavenly and glorious Sacrifice, in which he gave of himself, one time for all, in the fulfillment and surpassing of the levitic cult. It is the doctrine of the Letter to the Hebrews, which in fact does not enjoy much esteem from those theologians of “decultization” – an obscene term – who want to attribute to the Letter a certain responsibility for the sacralizing concept of Christian ministry.
It is incorrect to incriminate and abhor the cult structure and sacrality of priesthood, which aims in intent and nature to keep a sense of God alive and encourage prayer; and it is wrong to define priestly structure and cult with purely exterior practices, without soul and truth and consider its alternative, “existential.” It devalues a fundamental element in the history of the ancient alliance and all that is connected to worship and cult.
Jesus himself, with his family, did not fail to take part in the religious observances of his people.
By Inos Biffi