Transformation In Christ

"Christ is formed in us in an ineffable manner, not as a creature in creatures, but as uncreated God in a created nature, transforming that nature to His own image by the Spirit, and transferring the creature, that is, ourselves, to a dignity higher than that of a creature."

-St. Cyril of Alexandria

Whether The Priesthood Of Christ Was According To The Order Of Melchisedech?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is principal is not . secondary in regard to others, but others are secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the SS, Q[2], A[7]. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should be denominated after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the order of Melchisedech, which was before the Law.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2,3): "That is 'king of peace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor ending of life": which can be referred only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, as of some one else, but according to His own order.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech."

I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 3) the priesthood of the Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately representing the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in whose loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the priesthood of Christ is said to be "according to the order of Melchisedech," on account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural priesthood of the Law.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be according to the order of Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest, but because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood.

Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in Christ's priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking thereof. As to the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason of the shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which there was no blood-shedding. But if we consider the participation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally consists, then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) ecclesiastical unity, which is established by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [*Cf. Q[79], A[1]]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine.

Reply to Objection 3: Melchisedech is described as "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy Scripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is "likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to Is. 53:8: "Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of days.

-St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III. Q. 22, a. 6.

The Natural Priesthood

The priesthood is as old as the first man. God instituted the “original covenant of royal-priestly primogeniture” from the very beginning.[i] He created the world in six days and on the seventh he rested. The Sabbath is set up by God as a holy day of rest. It is the climax of creation; God’s covenant with mankind. When we celebrate the liturgy, we celebrate this covenant that God has made with man. In fact, all of creation is oriented towards this divine liturgy of the divine covenant. That is why we work six days out of the seven. The whole week leads up to this one day, so that each week is a sort of new creation. With this in mind, it is no surprise that Adam, the first man, was a priest. His priesthood, however, is not the same as the kind we know now, nor was it like the priesthood of the Levites. Adam’s priesthood was a natural one. The actions that Adam was to do in the Garden of Eden, “keep” and “till”, are priestly actions also proscribed for the Levitical priests in their duties in the temple. Eden was a primordial temple.[ii] Scott Hahn explains that “the basis for the patriarchal religion was the natural family order, most especially the patriarchal authority handed down from father to son—ideally the firstborn—often in the form of ‘the blessing.’”[iii] He also points out that “at this point in salvation history, family and church are coextensive—houses are domestic sanctuaries, meals are sacrifices, hearths are altars—all because fathers and their (firstborn) sons are empowered as priests by nature.”[iv] The “domestic church” existed way before Christianity.

So, in Genesis, we see the natural priesthood passed down from Adam to Seth[v] down to the time of Noah. When God causes the flood starting the world over with Noah and his family, we see Noah performing the same priestly actions as Adam did in the garden.[vi] The natural priesthood goes on and Shem inherits his father’s blessing and so on. Then, we reach chapter 14 of Genesis and seemingly out of nowhere comes this mysterious “Melchizedek king of Salem [who brings] out bread and wine” and he is also “priest of God Most High.”[vii] This is the first instance in the Bible where a person is referred to as a priest. But he is not just any priest. He is a “priest of God Most High.” Melchizedek also blesses Abram. But who is this Melchizedek? Who made him a priest? More importantly, where did he get this blessing that he gives to Abram?! For, a person cannot give a blessing without first receiving one. The answers to these questions can be found in St. Ephrem the Syrian’s Commentary on Genesis: “Melchizedek is Shem[viii], who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, ‘he was a priest.’ He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession.”[ix] Shem/Melchizedek passes the blessing he received from Noah onto Abram who was promised to be blessed by God back in chapter 12 . The priesthood continues on this way up to the time of Moses and the Exodus.

[i].Hahn, Scott, “Priesthood in the Old Testament.” in Russell Shaw, ed., Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1997), 525.
[ii].Wenham, Gordon J, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” in R.S. Hess and D. S. Tsumara, eds., I Studied Inscriptions From Before The Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 401. Cf. Numbers 3:7-8, 8:26, 18:5-6.
[iii].Hahn, Scott, “Priesthood in the Old Testament”, 524.
[iv].Ibid.
[v].The firstborn was to receive the blessing from the father passing on authority and priestly duties. This is not always the case, however. As we see in Genesis, the sin of the firstborn can cause the blessing to bypass him and fall to a younger brother.
[vi].Genesis 9.
[vii].Genesis 14:18.
[viii].Shem is the first righteous firstborn we meet in the Bible. It is also important to note that Melchizedek is not a name, but a title meaning “king of righteousness.” Cf. Hebrews 7:2.
[ix].Quoted in Gadenz, Pablo, “The Priest as Spiritual Father”, in Scott Hahn & Leon J. Suprenant, Jr. ed., Catholic for a Reason. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, Inc., 1998), 218. For more on Shem/Melchizedek Cf. Hahn, Scott Walker, Kinship By Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments. (PhD dissertation, Marquette University, 1995), 153-159, 171-181, 568-593.

New Feature

I have just added to my sidebar, a way of contacting me in order to ask any theological, apologetical, etc. type of questions.

Now I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have access to quite a bit of resources (I've been building up a pretty good theological library, not to mention resources at Franciscan's library) and know where to find answers to tough (or not so tough) questions. So, in efforts to build up and assist the Church in her efforts at educating the People of God (which means both clergy and laity), if any of my four readers out there have a question they are stumped on, send me an email and I might be able to help!

Reasons To Remain

“Many are the considerations which keep me in the Catholic Church—the assent of nations—her authority—first established by miracles—cherished by hope—extended by charity—strengthened by lapse of years; the succession of pastors from the chair of Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of feeding his flock down to the present bishop; lastly, the name itself of Catholic.”

-St. Augustine

Why Can't Non-Catholics Receive Communion At Mass?

This is one of the most common questions I get asked by non-Catholic family members and friends. This is always the first objection raised to my converting to Catholicism. "Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to receive the communion. Why is that? I can go to any Protestant church and receive communion. Why do Catholics exclude Protestants?"

The main reason that non-Catholics cannot receive Communion at Mass is simply because they are not in "communion" with us. It would be a lie for them to receive the Eucharist, which by doing so states that they believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. If they do in fact believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, then they should join the Catholic Church! Most non-Catholics however do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ and rather believe that the Eucharist is merely a memorial act of remembrance. If that is all they believe, then they can easily obtain that in their ecclesial communities. To receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is to enter into a covenant (every time we receive) with Christ and profess, "Yes, Lord, I believe that this truly is your Body,Blood, Soul, and Divinity." It makes no sense for a non-Catholic who doesn't believe this to receive communion. In fact, in their view, if they do make this act without truly believing, it would amount to idolatry and blasphemy. Yet, we as Catholics know for certain by Faith that it is the Body and Blood of Our Lord and we are mindful of what St. Paul said to the Corinthians that if they eat and drink the Body and Blood in an unworthy manner (i.e. without reverence and belief), they eat and drink judgment upon themselves (1 Cor11:27-30). So above all, it is out of concern for the welfare of our separated brethren that we do not permit them to take Communion at Mass. We do not wish that they eat and drink judgment upon themselves! Likewise, the Catholic Church also does not want Catholics who do not follow Church teaching to receive Communion. The Church is concerned with the welfare of souls both inside and outside of her communion.

I find it very curious though that non-Catholics are always so concerned about receiving Communion in the Catholic Church. If the Eucharist is just a symbolic memorial they can easily get that at their own parish, as I stated above. Yet it seems like there is a longing within them for something more. Inside they know that the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is more than just a memorial. There is something substantial to it. They desire it (as they naturally should), but when they can't have it they grow angry and bitter. I truly believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit moving them from within ever closer to this precious gift that Christ left us of His own Body and Blood. They may not consciously believe that Christ is truly present, but subconsciouly they know the truth. Christ is calling out to them in the Eucharist and beckoning them to union with God which only He can bring. This union He brings in the most definitive way by offering us His own flesh and blood for our spiritual food. Christ truly enters into us. We feast upon this Glorious Lamb of God who gives us life and takes away the sins of the world! Unless we partake of Christ's flesh and blood, we have no life in us. This truly is a hard saying, yes, but to whom else shall we go? For it is Christ alone who has the words of eternal life. And He has expressly told us that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood abides in Him, and He in them.

Abide in Christ and join His Mystical Body, which is His Catholic Church!

Bridal-Maternity Of Mary

“Contrary to most modern feminism, Mary, as bridal-mother, reveals that our fundamental stance in relation to God and divine revelation is that of being actively receptive. She is the New Eve, the consort of the New Adam, who does the opposite of the first Eve in that she does not initiate (take the fruit) but is actively-receptive in response to the angelic visitor. Her ‘fiat’ is at the core of redeemed humanity. This Marian response is to be the response of the Church in all her members because Mary, as John Paul II notes, ‘is the representative and the archetype of the whole human race: she represents the humanity which belongs to all human beings, both men and women.’ History has proven time and time again that where there is a failure to understand and appreciate the role of Mary in Ecclesiology and Christology, the view presented of Christ and His Church will be askew, if not altogether distorted. In many theological circles this is what has happened today. For this reason Jon Saward’s critique of certain brands of ecumenism could not be more accurate: ‘A Mary-less Christology has become a Christianity without Christ.’”

-Fr. Donald Calloway, M.I.C. in his article "Bridegroom Christology: Salvation as Nuptial Drama" published in the Aug-Sept. 2003 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

Vatican To Publish Documents On Suppression Of Knights Templar

The Vatican is planning publication of a book on the suppression of the Knights Templar, based on material from the Vatican Secret Archives.

The Knights Templar, a religious order established in Jerusalem in 1118, grew in power during the Crusades, and became a formidable military and political force in Europe in the 12th and 13th century. In the early 14th century, under pressure from the French monarchy, Pope Clement V forcibly suppressed the order.

However, rumors about the secrets of the military order have been circulated for centuries, and the Knights Templar. The order has figured in a number of recent fictional works. The new work to be published by the Vatican Archives is unlikely to stem the curiosity of conspiracy theorists.

On October 25, the Vatican office of the Secret Archives will unveil the book Processus contra Templarios, containing "a previously unpublished and exclusive edition of the complete acts of the original hearing against the Knights Templar," the Vatican has announced. Containing reproductions of the original parchment documents, the book is "the most elaborate and important publication yet undertaken" by the Archives, the Vatican states. The book will be a special collector's edition, with only 799 copies produced. [Source]

Don't Knock The Fathers!

“[Mr. Pope] endeavors to bring the Holy Fathers into a qualified disrepute, as Luther did before him. When Luther found the authority of the holy Fathers strong against him, he said, ‘I care not if a thousand Chrysostoms, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Augustines, stood against me. And let this be my creed, ‘I yield to no man.’’ Again, he says, ‘I, Dr. Martin Luther, as to those matters (articles of faith,) am and wish to be deemed obstinate, contumacious, and violent.’ Such was Luther’s confession that the Fathers were against him. When Luther found a great number of sects arising amongst the reformers—Calvin denying the real presence—Zuinglius saying, that THIS IS MY BODY, means ‘this REPRESENTS my body,’ he began to repent, and he threatened to return to Popery again, if they continued to raise such schisms. Mr. Pope should not endeavor to bring the Holy Fathers into disrepute. If he says that they were fallible, which I admit, yet he must allow that they are good and faithful witnesses of what was the Christian doctrine in their days. If I show, as I will, the infallibility of the church to be the doctrine of sixty Fathers at a time, when Mr. Pope will admit that the church was pure, then is it not evident that such doctrine must be true? If Mr. Pope answers in the negative, then he must contradict all Protestants who admit the authority of the first four councils—I do not include the council of Jerusalem.”

-Fr. Thomas Maguire in his debate against the Rev. Richard T.P. Pope, which took place at the lecture room of the Dublin Institution on April 19, 1827.

St. Paul's Message To The Gospel of Health And Wealth Crowd

"It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are bastards and not sons." (Hebrews 12:7-8)


As Fr. Swetnam says, that's the old time religion right there!