At his General Audience on March 18th, Leo’s continued his catechesis on Lumen Gentium by immediately mentioning “the messianic people.” As mentioned in our last episode of Conciliar Catechesis Watch, this is a title for the Christian faithful that appears to have originated at Vatican Council II. I’ll have more on that in an upcoming podcast.
From there, Leo moved on to Lumen Gentium’s treatment of the “common priesthood of the faithful,” which is yet another phrase with a dubious pedigree. In this episode, we’ll discuss how this title differs from the Church’s traditional treatment of the laity’s share in the priestly office of Christ, and how it is treated in the conciliar church are noteworthy.
An article / transcript appear below the video.
TRANSCRIPT
In this episode, we’re going to take a look at Leo’s catechesis on March 18th, which he kicked off by immediately mentioning “the messianic people,” a title for the Christian faithful that appears to have originated at Vatican Council II.
I’ll have more on that in an upcoming podcast.
From there, Leo moved on to Lumen Gentium’s treatment of the “common priesthood of the faithful” – and this is yet another phrase with a dubious pedigree.
In 1984, the Occupied Vatican’s International Theological Commission published a document in anticipation of the 20thanniversary of the Council’s closing, wherein it states the following:
The Second Vatican Council gave renewed attention to the common priesthood of the faithful. The expression “common priesthood” and the reality that it covers have deep biblical roots (cf., for instance, Ex 19:6; Is 61:6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rom 12:1; Rev 1:6; 5:9-10) and received abundant commentary from such Church Fathers as Origen, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine. And yet, this phrase had very nearly vanished from the vocabulary of Catholic theology because of the anti-hierarchical use made of it by the Reformers.
At this, let’s be clear: It is Catholic doctrine that the lay faithful share in the priestly office of Jesus Christ. No argument there.
That said, the International Theological Commission (ITF for short) is way overselling the idea that Vatican II is to be credited with resurrecting this allegedly forgotten truth, as if it represents a major victory for the conciliar proponents of ressourcement. That’s total nonsense.
The laity’s sharing in the priestly office of Christ, i.e., the reality that it covers as the ITC put it, could no more be forgotten than Scripture itself. St. Peter, in his First Epistle, reassured the faithful that they are a “royal priesthood,” called to be built up into “a holy priesthood.”
It’s simply not true that the Council breathed new life into this long since forgotten doctrine. This reminds me of how conciliar snake oil salesmen insist that the “call to holiness” was one of Vatican II’s major accomplishments, when in fact the totality of St Paul’s Epistles largely amount a series of repeated calls to holiness.
And get this: Even though the ITC specifically cites Exodus, Isaiah, 1 Peter, Romans and Revelation in reference to the expression “common priesthood” – in quotes – alleging that it very nearly vanished, the fact is, that phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible.
The ITC also claims that this expression received “abundant commentary from such Church Fathers as Origen, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine.”
Guess what? I couldn’t find even one Patristic source – much less from the Fathers mentioned – that employed the expression “common priesthood of the faithful.” Not one.
As for why this phrase allegedly very nearly vanished from the Church, the ITC said that it was because Luther and company were claiming that since all of the baptized share in the priestly office of Christ, the Church’s hierarchical structure is illegitimate.
In other words, the Catholic Church, in reacting to the Protestant revolt, is to blame for ignoring this allegedly Biblical and Patristic truth in order to preserve the power of the hierarchy.
As we know, the Church’s most noteworthy response to the Protestant revolt was the Council of Trent, which taught in light of Protestant claims against the hierarchy:
It is to be confessed, that there is in the Church a visible and external priesthood … instituted by the Lord, delivering the power of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.
Trent did not address the laity’s share in the priestly office of Christ for the simple reason that such was not in dispute, however, the Roman Catechism – otherwise known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent – does reiterate the traditional doctrine as follows:
Sacred Scripture describes a twofold priesthood, one internal and the other external, it will [therefore] be necessary to have a distinct idea of each to enable pastors to explain the nature of the priesthood.
Regarding the internal priesthood, all the faithful are said to be priests, once they have been washed in the saving waters of Baptism. Especially is this name given to the just who have the Spirit of God, and who, by the help of divine grace, have been made living members of the great Highpriest, Jesus Christ…
Pope Pius XII provides more clarity still in his Encyclical Mediator Dei:
By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the “character” which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.
At this, one may be getting a sense for why the ITC, an arm of the conciliar church that operates under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as it was called at that time), is going out of its way to convince the naïve that the specific phrase, “common priesthood of the faithful” as it was used at Vatican II, has Biblical and Patristic roots.
Notice the difference in how the topic is addressed by the Council, the ITC and the traditional sources:
The traditional treatment of the laity’s participation in the priestly office of Christ – as found in the Roman Catechism, for example – refers to this as the “internal priesthood,” this in contrast to the sacramental priesthood which is visible and external.
Pope Pius XII provides an important clarification. Did you catch it?
The Holy Father explains that the Baptized participate in the priesthood of Christ specifically as members of His Mystical Body, and it is thus that the laity are “appointed to give worship to God.” This should make sense insofar as w
That the “internal priesthood” of the faithful is exercised in the Church, as members of Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Church, appointed to give worship to God as such, should make sense insofar as we are called to worship God in the way in which He revealed, which is why the popes of tradition condemned the idea that man has a supposed “liberty of worship.” (See, for example, Libertas by Pope Leo XIII)
Pope Pius XII further clarifies the nature of this “internal priesthood” and why it is called internal. He writes about the laity’s role at Holy Mass, saying, once again in Mediator Dei:
Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that… they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister… rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or the intention of the priest…
With all that in mind, let’s return to what the Council and the ITC teach and why.
When Lumen Gentium invokes the phrase “common priesthood of the faithful,” we need to apply the hermeneutic of cohesion to understand what is being said.
REMEMBER: In the conciliar lexicon, “the faithful” includes not only Catholics, but also heretics and schismatics. So, when it speaks of a “common priesthood of the faithful,” the commonality pertains to that which is supposedly shared by everyone who has ever been baptized.
In other words, we are once again witnessing the Council’s ecumenical fervor, and its attempt to suggest that there is unity among heretics and Catholics where it doesn’t truly exist.
Applying the hermeneutic of cohesion still more, and without going into great detail, it bears mention that the Council, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, states:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people, is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
At this point, it should not be necessary for me to point out that all the faithful … the Christian people … by reason of their baptism refers not only to Catholic but to heretics and schismatics as well. The Council is saying that even they, by right, should actively participate in the liturgy of the Church!
The Council goes even further, saying:
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.
Get that? Making room for the lay active participation in the liturgy – including that of heretics and schismatics – is the primary aimstated by the Council in laying out the “principles and norms” for the reform of the liturgy moving forward.
Is it any wonder that the so-called reformed rite, the Novus Ordo, is so earthbound, man-centered, and Protestantized?
The Council is so committed to the idea of participation by all of the people that it even went on to say that celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with laity present is preferred over a priest’s private Mass, as if the one is somehow better than the other. It states:
… wrt communal celebrations involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
We’ve already made note of how the Occupied Vatican’s International Theological Commission – shall we say – stretched the truth by suggesting that the phrase “common priesthood of the faithful” has Biblical and Patristic roots.
What I’ve yet to point out is that the ITC flatly lied about that expression. You’ll recall that it said that …this phrase “common priesthood of the faithful” had very nearly vanished from the vocabulary of Catholic theology.
Picking up where we left off, in the very next sentence it declares:
Still, it is appropriate to remember here that the Roman Catechism mentioned it quite explicitly.
At this point, I suspect it won’t come as a surprise when I tell you that the Roman Catechism, which I quoted to you previously, says no such thing. I even took the time to cross reference the Latin normative text of the Catechism just to confirm, and sure enough, the “common priesthood” is nowhere to be found.
Evidently, the conciliar church doesn’t favor the traditional description of the “interior priesthood” since it would seem to undermine its call for a revision of the liturgy that creates opportunities for what it calls “active participation,” which, as the Novus Ordo experience demonstrates, means doing things.
The truth is, the Traditional Latin Mass, the entire rite, is perfectly conducive to the exercise of one’s “interior priesthood,” which Pope Pius XII described as the people uniting their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or the intention of the priest…
In conclusion…
I know we spent a great deal of time examining just one solitary phrase from Vatican II – “the common priesthood of the faithful” – but hopefully you found it worth the effort.
Think of it as an example of St. Paul’s warning, issued twice in Sacred Scripture:
Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the entire lump?
Until next time…
