by

Eamonn Keane

Throughout the English-speaking world, Catholic religious education has been heavily influenced by the ideas of Thomas Groome. His method of religious education, which he calls Shared Christian Praxis, is a blueprint for the destruction of  Catholic Faith. Nevertheless, his ideas underpin the religious education curricula of several Australian Catholic dioceses. Do you know the type of religious education your children are being exposed to? If not, it is in their eternal interests that you find out. This book by Eamonn Keane will assist you do this.

Contents

Chapter 1: Passing on the Faith

Chapter 2: Groome’s Deconstruction of Catholicism

Deconstruction of Papal Authority

Deconstructing the Ordained Priesthood

Apostolic Succession

Women Priests & Homosexual Marriages

What shall we say of Christ?

Chapter 3: Religious Education: Content, Methodology, Witness

Content

Methodology

The Teacher

Chapter 4: Shared Christian Praxis: Fatally Flawed

Rooted in Neo-Marxist Critical Theory

Divine Revelation?

Shared Christian Praxis: Fatally Flawed

The Hermeneutic of Suspicion

Chapter 5: What is Christian Praxis

Chapter 6: Can a Bad Tree Bear Good Fruit

1993 Support Units

1994 Support Units

1999 Revised Version of Sharing Our Story

Conflicting Christologies

Teacher references

Student Texts

Conclusion

Chapter I

Passing on the Faith 

Jesus Christ reveals the purpose of our existence, which is to know, love and serve God here on earth, and then to be happy with him forever in Heaven. To be a disciple of Jesus is to allow his words and deeds to affect all aspects of our lives.

Jesus established the Catholic Church as the means through which the saving power of his life, death and resurrection would be brought to all people for all time. A source of blessing for Catholics is that in the teaching of the Church they have easy access to true knowledge about God and his moral law. By adhering to this teaching, members of the Church can be sure that they are indeed living in the truth: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16; cf. Mt 16:16-18; Jn 21:15-17). The teaching authority of the Church, often referred to as the ‘Magisterium’, is exercised by the Pope and by the bishops in communion with him.

Catholic parents have a responsibility to form their children in the doctrines of the faith. It is to help them carry out this responsibility that Catholic schools exist. The only reason why parents should prefer Catholic schools to other types of schools is because of the quality of religious and moral education they provide. Pope John Paul II has stated that if a Catholic school could be reproached “for negligence or deviation” in the religious education it provides, it would then no longer be deserving of the title ‘Catholic’.[1]

In each diocese, it is the local bishop who has primary responsibility for ensuring that the religious education and catechesis provided in Catholic schools conforms to the doctrine of the Church. Vatican II reminded bishops of their duty to ensure that catechists and religious education teachers “are adequately prepared for their task” by “being well-instructed in the doctrine of the Church.”[2] Pope John Paul II has told bishops that proper oversight of catechesis in their diocese will sometimes impose on them “the thankless task of denouncing deviations and correcting errors.”[3] However, the faithful performance of this duty will, said the Holy Father, win for the bishops “the joy and consolation” of seeing their Churches flourish “because catechesis is given in them as the Lord wishes.”[4]

Today, many Catholic parents grieve because one or more of their children have given up the practice of the faith or have adopted lifestyles at variance with the Church’s moral doctrine. Coupled with this, the 1996 Catholic Church Life Survey revealed that rejection of various Church doctrines is common even among a large proportion of those Catholics who still go to Mass regularly.

There are multiple reasons why many Catholic youth think the Church has little to offer them. For example, the influence of the secular and hedonistic culture undermines their sense of God and of sin. Added to this is the lack of support and example from many of their parents who don’t practice the faith. Significant though these factors may be in explaining why Catholic youth are giving up the practice of the faith, it is certain however that one cannot love what one does not know. This problem becomes particularly acute if during religious education (RE) classes in Catholic schools, youth are exposed to heterodox (contradictions of Catholic doctrine) ideas as though they represented a rational corrective to Catholic doctrine. In this regard, parents need to do everything in their power to combat the influence of dissent on the religious education of their children. A failure to do so would be equivalent to abandoning their children to enemies of the faith (cf. Jn 10:12).

Dissent from Catholic teaching is endemic amongst student teachers at the Australian Catholic University (ACU), as is ignorance of the faith among Catholic high school students. In 1999, Professor Dennis McLaughlin of the ACU released results of a survey he had conducted of the beliefs, values and practices of student teachers at the ACU. Administered to 647 first and final year student teachers at campuses in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, McLaughlin’s most significant findings were:

·         only 50 percent of students understood God as the Blessed Trinity;

·         only one-third of students believed that the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass;

·         62 percent believed that the Church should ordain women;

·         2 percent said they accepted the Church’s teaching on contraception and divorce;

·         10 percent accepted the Church’s teaching on pre-marital sex;

·         14  percent said they accepted the Church’s teaching on abortion.

In an address to the 2002 Conference of the Association of Principals of Catholic Secondary Schools of Australia, Professor McLaughlin stated that on the basis of other survey work he had conducted he believed the “vast majority” of teachers in Catholic schools “have reservations about the contemporary Catholic Church, their employer.” He said that these teachers, together with the majority of Australian Catholics, constitute a “parallel Church” which largely disregards the teaching of the “institutional Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Magisterium.” Professor McLaughlin’s findings regarding the religious beliefs and practices of Catholic school teachers and ACU students form a consistent pattern with the findings of Br. Marcellin Flynn regarding the ignorance of Catholic doctrine by students in Catholic high schools.[5]

In religious education, dissent can express itself not only in texts books and audio/visual materials, but also in teaching methodologies. In some educational processes, the methodology can be indistinguishable from the content insofar as it embodies philosophical ideas that determine the perspective from which the content is presented. Of particular concern in this regard is a method of religious education known as Shared Christian Praxis. It is the brainchild of Thomas Groome who is an ex-priest and professor of religious education and theology at Boston College. Even though he is a leading dissenter from Catholic doctrine, he has had a significant impact on religious education in Catholic schools in Australia. In October 2002, he was the keynote speaker at the second national conference of the Association of Principals of Catholic Secondary Schools of Australia.

The first diocese in  Australia to explicitly base its religious education curriculum on Groome’s method was Parramatta in 1991. Titled Sharing Our Story, this curriculum was revised in 1999 and its Core document prescribes the use of  Groome’s method. In 2000, the Archdiocese of Canberra-Goulburn published its new religious education curriculum titled Treasures New and Old which borrows heavily from the Parramatta curriculum. It too prescribes the use of Groome’s shared Christian praxis.

In a letter dated 14^th April 2003, Bishop Hanna of Wagga informed his priests of a decision he had taken to replace existing diocesan religious education curricula with Parramatta’s Sharing Our Story. “Through the use of this resource,” said Bishop Hanna, “we are plugging into a wide network of professional and ecclesiastical expertise.” In his letter, Bishop Hanna revealed that as well as Canberra-Goulburn, Sharing Our Story is used also in the Archdiocese of Hobart, the country dioceses of Victoria and Wilcannia-Forbes.

The Core curriculum documents for Parramatta and Canberra-Goulburn praise Groome for having developed “an overarching approach to religious education and ministry.” These documents direct that “approaches to assessment should support and strengthen the commitment to shared Christian praxis,” which they say “sets the overarching style” of each syllabus. Coupled with this, in 2000 the Parramatta Catholic Education Office (CEO) produced a publication titled An Introduction to Shared Christian Praxis that carried an imprimatur by Bishop Manning. Authored by Barry Dwyer, the “For Further Information” section of this publication listed the following items:

·         a publication by the Parramatta CEO on shared Christian praxis;

·         a video program featuring Thomas Groome;

·         two books authored by Groome including Sharing Faith;

·        an article on shared Christian praxis.

The last item mentioned above was authored by members of the RE team at the Parramatta CEO. After expressing their endorsement of the view that shared Christian praxis “is by far the most admirable faith forming religious education model available today because of its educational and theological precision,” they went on to call for the professional development of teachers along lines that would  enable them to undertake an “implementation” of shared Christian praxis that would be “faithful to Groome’s thinking.”[6]

This confidence in Groome is misplaced given that his dissenting ideas go hand-in-hand with his method of RE. In Sharing Faith, Groome either contradicts or obscures various Catholic doctrines, especially those relating to the nature and origin of the ministerial (ordained) priesthood and its link to the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. For example, he asserts that the Church’s doctrine regarding the reservation of the ordained priesthood to men alone “is the result of a patriarchal mind-set and culture and is not of Christian faith.”[7] He posits that “the injustice of excluding women from priesthood debilitates the church’s sacramentality in the world” and that “it is a countersign to God’s reign."[8] He even asserts that the Church’s doctrine on this question is “doing spiritual and moral harm to society.”[9] Elsewhere, he maintains that non-ordained Christians can administer the sacrament of reconciliation.[10]

In his dissent from the teaching of the magisterium, Groome has even taken to publicly excoriating Pope John Paul II. When the Holy Father issued Ad Tuendam Fidem the stated purpose of which was “to protect the faith of the Catholic Church” against errors arising “especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology,” Groome responded to it by saying it was “a pretentious attempt by the present pope to stifle conversation and dialogue,” adding, “I read the blessed thing and without being too melodramatic, I was on the verge of tears. It is a very sad day.”[11]

Despite Groome’s direct attack on Catholic doctrine in Sharing Faith, the Core curriculum documents for Sharing Our Story and Treasures New and Old still recommend the book to teachers. Given that these Core documents carry imprimaturs from Bishop Manning and Archbishop Carroll, teachers who read Sharing Faith could easily conclude that Groome’s erroneous ideas are valid expressions of Catholic doctrine and pass them on as such to their students in the classroom.

In an article I had published in the December-January 2002 edition of AD2000, I drew attention to the fatally flawed nature of Groome's shared Christian praxis and I pointed out how the revised version of Sharing Our Story had again prescribed it as the methodology to be used in teaching the curriculum. At the same time, I cited examples from Groome’s work of where he contradicts the dogmatic and definitive teaching of the Catholic Church. In a letter in the February 2003 edition of AD2000 responding to my article in the previous edition, Bishop Manning stated that I was seeking “to discredit Thomas Groome’s method of shared praxis by discrediting his theology.” Having said this, Bishop Manning went on to add:

“There is nothing unorthodox or heretical about shared praxis. It makes explicit a method of teaching practised by all good teachers through the centuries before the term shared praxis was ever coined. It is simply taking a life experience, reflecting on it, interpreting it in the light of Scripture and Tradition and getting on with living the Christian life. This is what we do sometimes when we pray.”

With filial regard for Bishop Manning and Archbishop Carroll, and with deepest reverence for the sacred office which they bear, I nevertheless think it is a grave mistake to present the works of public dissenters to religion teachers as worthwhile reading material for their professional development. Also, I am certain that in prescribing shared Christian praxis as the method to be used by teachers, the Core documents for Sharing Our Story and Treasures New and Old are not being faithful to the Church’s directives regarding choice of methodology in religious education as these are set forth in Catechesi Tradendae and the General Directory for Catechesis (GDC).

Basing an RE curriculum on a defective methodology can be likened to placing poison in a cup of water. A sip from the poisoned cup can kill, so too can defective religious education methodologies corrupt the faith of Catholic children. As poison mixed with water is not always clear to the naked eye, neither may the corrosive effects of defective RE methodologies be easily discernible. 

Those who have constructed the Sharing Our Story curriculum seem oblivious to the poisonous ideas that flow through Groome’s shared Christian praxis.  One such idea has it that the Word of God (Sacred Scripture and Tradition), as authoritatively interpreted and mediated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, cannot be trusted since it may contain distortions and untruth. Hence, according to Groome, the teaching of the Church must be subjected to what is called a “hermeneutic of suspicion”. The essence of this “suspicion” is that nothing can be taken at face value. Theologians who employ this method assume that much of what is written in the Bible or contained in the doctrinal statements of the Church is mere propaganda defending ideologies that were dominant when these texts were formulated.

Those who insist on maintaining the nexus between Sharing Our Story and shared Christian praxis may claim that none of Groome’s dissenting ideas appear in the foundational texts of the curriculum. But that is not the point. Their stated aim is to have teachers and students learn his method as it applies to how Catholic faith should be lived in the world. The students and teachers don't have to be taught Groome's dissenting ideas, they will be opened to them as a result of using shared Christian praxis the way Groome intends it to be used. If this claim is not true, why else would the compilers of Sharing Our Story quote Groome’s work in such a positive light and explicitly lend their endorsement to the claim that his method of RE is the best available today? Or again, why would they call for an implementation of shared Christian praxis in a way  that is “faithful to Groome’s thinking”?

Bishops and other Catholic education authorities must act decisively against the teaching and propagation of error in Catholic precincts. The words of Pope St. Felix III apply here: "An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed."[12] Given the importance of this question, the primary purpose of this book is to outline the subversive nature of Groome’s shared Christian praxis. In doing so, I will start by outlining some of his heterodox ideas as a prelude to showing how these same ideas are immanent in his method of religious education.

return to top

Chapter 2

Groome's Deconstruction of Catholicism

Groome asserts that Jesus established his Church along egalitarian lines. In Sharing Faith he says: “Throughout his ministry, Jesus called together ‘an inclusive discipleship of equals’ to participate in his mission and to carry it on after him.”[1]As a logical extension of this, he adds that the Church “should be an egalitarian community.”[2]

Deconstruction of Papal Teaching Authority 

If Groome’s egalitarian Church were ever to exist, authority would have to be exercised in it via majority vote or consensus. However, this would leave no room for the supreme authority of the Pope, something which would not seem to bother Groome. He says:

“In mainstream Catholic understanding of papal magisterium, however, the pope, as bishop of Rome, must teach in consultation and collegiality with the bishops of the world and represent the consensus faith of the whole Church, in fidelity to Scripture and Tradition.”[3]

             As was the case with Peter within the group of the apostles, the Pope as a member of the college of bishops always remains the Vicar of Christ. He is not the vicar of the Church as Groome would have him. In the documents of Vatican II we read: “The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”[4] In regard to the supreme teaching authority of the Pope, Vatican II added: “And therefore, his definitions [the Pope’s], of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable…and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgement.”[5]

            In view of the teaching of Vatican II given above, it is clear that Groome’s assertion that the Roman Pontiff in exercising his papal magisterium “must teach in consultation and collegiality with the bishops of the world” is erroneous. Indeed, this very proposition was anathematised by Vatican I.[6]

From his attempt to ‘downsize’ papal authority, Groome proceeds to a similar reductionist assault on the teaching authority of the Magisterium in general. He says:

“If we remember that the Church is the whole community of the Body of Christ, including all baptised Christians and not just its leaders, then we recognise that the Church’s ‘teaching authority’ cannot be limited to the institutional magisterium.”[7]

As opposed to what Groome asserts above,  Vatican II taught as follows:

“But the task of giving an authentic interpretation to the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”[8]

In Sharing Faith, Groome casts doubt on the Catholic doctrine that there is a direct line of succession linking the present Pope to St. Peter. He says: “The traditional Catholic assertion that there is a direct historical line of succession between the present Pope and Peter, presumed to be the first bishop of Rome, must also be nuanced.”[9] He adds that “in light of New Testament scholarship, we cannot presume a line of direct succession between pope and Peter...the function of bishop as we might recognise it today did not begin until the second century.”[10] Then, with the aid of a quotation from Raymond Brown,  he says:

“In light of this, ‘the supposition that, when Peter did come to Rome (presumably in the 60’s), he took over and became the first bishop represents a retrojection of later church order’.”[11]

Let us pause for a moment to notice how Groome uses the hermeneutic of suspicion in his words quoted above: “must also be nuanced.” This phrase suggests that the reader should be suspicious of the “traditional Catholic assertion that there is a direct historical line of succession…”. ‘Nuanced’ in Groome’s sentence implies that there is a deficit of some sort – be it in terms of meaning or historical accuracy - in the Catholic doctrinal position that links the present Pope to St. Peter in a line of perpetual succession.

It is true, as Pope John Paul II points out, that the New Testament does not state Jesus’ “specific desire to choose Rome as the primatial See.”[12] Our Lord entrusted that, adds the Holy Father, “to historical events in which the divine plan for the Church, the determination of the concrete conditions of Peter’s succession, would appear.”[13] The New Testament does however reveal Jesus’ intention in regard to the role of Peter and his successors in the Church. Given that there must be a succession to Peter in virtue of Christ’s institution of the Petrine office, and that there are no signs of such a succession or claims to it evident in any  See other than that of Rome, then not to accept the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter would leave us with no alternative but to assert that Christ’s Church is a wholly invisible reality. But such a proposition is heresy, something that belongs to classical Protestantism as it is given expression in the Westminister Confession. 

In establishing his Church with a hierarchical constitution, Jesus definitely intended that there would be successors to St. Peter in terms of his teaching and ruling authority. Vatican I defined this truth of faith when it said: “It is by the institution of Christ the Lord, that is, by divine right, that blessed Peter has endless successors in his primacy over the whole Church.”[14] Linking this primacy to the See of Rome, Vatican I stated that “the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in the same primacy.”[15] According to Pope John Paul II, this definition “binds the primacy of Peter and his successor to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see.”[16] Thus, in the solemn teaching of Vatican I we read: 

“If, then, any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the Universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy - anathema sit.”[17]

From what has been said above regarding the “perpetual line of succession” linking the present pope to St. Peter, it is clear that Groome is in contradiction of Catholic doctrine when he asserts that “we cannot presume a line of direct succession between pope and Peter.” If the link between Peter and the present pope is one of “perpetual succession”, then it cannot be anything other than “direct succession.” The fact that the pope may choose to live for a time at Avignon or somewhere else does not in the least negate this truth.

In historical terms, the earliest reference to St. Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome is found in Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Written around 96 A.D, this letter was occasioned by disobedience amongst Christians in Corinth whereby they rejected their local hierarchy. In his capacity as head of “the Church of God dwelling at Rome,” St. Clement commanded the Corinthian Christians on pain of grave sin to submit in obedience to their lawful hierarchy.[18] This authoritative intervention towards the end of the first century by Pope St. Clement in the affairs of Christians in Corinth (a Greek city), is evidence that the successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome  was by that time exercising universal jurisdiction in the Church founded by Christ. Other significant testimony to the presence of Peter in Rome and to the Bishops of Rome in the first two centuries as his successors are to be found in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus.

return to top

 Deconstructing the Ordained Priesthood

According to the teaching of Vatican II, the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is the “source and summit of the Christian life.”[19] The Eucharist Sacrifice is inextricably linked to the priesthood of Christ. The role of a priest is to act as a mediator between God and man. The New Testament recognises no other priesthood other than that of Christ. His sacrifice, whereby he freely “lays down his life for his sheep” (Jn 10: 11), is presented in the New Testament as the sacrifice of the priest who sheds his own blood for the expiation of sins (cf. Mk 14:24; Rom 5:6; Eph 1:7; 2:3; 1 Jn 2:2; Eph 5:20-25). The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of Christ as the “high priest” who bears in himself a “priesthood that continues for ever” (Heb 5: 9-10; 7:24).

Christ made all members of his Church sharers in his priesthood (cf. Rev 1:6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9). This participation in the priesthood of Christ is of two types: i) the “common” priesthood of all the faithful, and ii) the “ministerial” priesthood which is also referred to as the “hierarchical” or “ordained” priesthood. 

The common priesthood is conferred by Baptism through which the faithful are incorporated into the Church and “reborn as sons of God". As such, they are able to participate in the worship of the Church and receive the other sacraments, as well as being commissioned to bear witness to the Gospel in their daily lives.[20] 

The ministerial priesthood is conferred through the sacrament Holy Orders by which “the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time.”[21]  There are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: i) episcopal consecration through which the fullness of Holy Orders is conferred on bishops, ii) the presbyterate (priests) which is conferred through priestly ordination. The third degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders known as the diaconate, does not confer the ministerial priesthood, but rather calls those on whom it is conferred to a particular form of service in the Church.

In reference to the ministerial priesthood, Vatican II stated that through the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests “are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head.”[22] This means that through the service of the ministerial priest, “it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth.”[23]

The distinction between the “common” and “ministerial” priesthoods is critical to our understanding of the Church. Highlighting this distinction between the two priesthoods, Vatican II said that they “differ from one another in essence and not only in degree.”[24] Consistent with his reductionist assault on the hierarchical nature of the Church, Groome in Sharing Faith relativises this teaching by asserting that it merely “reflects the present ‘mind’ of the Church,” and that “historical circumstances and critical scholarship may yet nuance it.”[25] He adds that the “primary intent” of Vatican II’s teaching on this question was “to affirm the close relationship” between the two priesthoods and that “their distinction seems more parenthetical.” [26]

In 1983, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF), issued with the approval of Pope John Paul II a letter to the world’s bishops titled Sacerdotium Ministeriale (The Minister of the Eucharist). It stated that “it is of the very nature of the church that the power to consecrate the eucharist is imparted only to the bishops and priests who are constituted its ministers by the reception of holy orders.”[27] It rejected as contrary to Catholic doctrine the assertion that a local community can “have the right to designate” its own leaders and to confer on them the faculties necessary “for presiding at and consecrating the eucharist.”[28] It added that the Christian community “was deliberately structured hierarchically by its divine Founder,” in consequence of which “there have existed from its earliest days specific apostolic powers deriving from the sacrament of holy orders.”[29] It stated  that among the powers which Christ entrusted exclusively to the apostles and their successors “is the power of confecting the Eucharist.”[30]

The Council of Trent teaches that when Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return, “he thereby constituted them priests of the New Covenant.”[31] In harmony with this, it added:

“If anyone says that by the words ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11: 24) Christ did not establish the apostles as priests or that He did not order (ordinasse) that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema.”[32]

Groome is particularly concerned to reconstruct the history and nature of “ministries” in the early Church. In Sharing Faith, he asserts that “the many specific ministries in the New Testament church seems to have emerged from the existential situations and needs of the first Christian communities.”[33] Again, notice the method of suspicion at work. Groome’s statement that all of  “the many specific ministries” in the New Testament “seems to have emerged from the existential situations and needs of the first Christian communities” implies that the ministerial priesthood also arose from the “needs” of the community.

As we have seen, the Council of Trent definitively teaches that Christ first conferred the ministerial priesthood on the apostles at the Last Supper. Being logically consistent, however, Groome relativises this truth. After asserting that the “equating” of “apostle with sacerdotal function” is not “in the first century,” and in regard to what he reductively calls “the traditional Catholic notion that the apostles were commissioned at the Last Supper to preside at Eucharist,” Groome goes on in Sharing Faith to quote with apparent approval Kenan B. Osborne where he says:

 “In spite of the long tradition of this view, contemporary scholars find no basis for such an interpretation. In other words, Jesus did not ordain the apostles (disciples) at this final supper to be ‘priests,’ giving them thereby the power to celebrate the eucharist.”[34]

In Sharing Faith, Groome attributes to Raymond Brown what he terms the now “generally accepted” thesis that “the first Christians did not see the confecting of the Eucharist as a personal and ontological power invested in one person who rendered Eucharist for the community.”[35] “Instead,” says Groome, “through the presence of the Holy Spirit, the ‘sacramental powers’ resided in the whole community, ” so that “the community chose certain people to preside at divine worship for the sake of ‘holy order’.”[36]

Groome’s suspicion of the Church’s teaching on the origin of the ministerial priesthood is clear in the quote above where he infers that the Church’s doctrine regarding the source of the power of the sacrament of Holy Orders is untrue. His conclusion in this regard is based on the way that Raymond Brown applied the hermeneuic of suspicion to the Church’s teaching on the question under consideration.

Again in Sharing Faith, Groome asserts that “the notion that presiding at Eucharist is an exclusively priestly function did not become widespread until the beginning of the third century.”[37] He adds that “the association of priesthood with Eucharist emerged as later Christians began to allegorise the sacrifices of the Hebrew covenant, which were offered by priests.” Finally, says Groome, the Eucharist came to be “perceived as replacing the sacrifices no longer offered in the now destroyed temple, and thus requiring the sacerdotal function of the priest.”[38]

The Council of Trent set forth the principle that “sacrifice and priesthood are by divine ordinance united” in both the Old and the New Testament, and that in instituting the ministerial priesthood, Christ gave “to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood…the power of consecrating, offering, and administering his body and blood…[as] shown by the Sacred Scriptures and [as] has always been taught by the tradition of the Catholic Church.”[39]

We see from the above that in defining Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist and ministerial priesthood, Trent did so on the basis of what has been “shown by the Sacred Scriptures and has always been taught by the tradition of the Catholic Church.” This gives rise to some important principles. The first is that in reading Sacred Scripture from a Catholic perspective, we must do so within the framework of the Church’s Faith, not apart from it. It follows that we cannot interpret a text of Sacred Scripture in a way that contradicts interpretations of other passages of the Bible accepted by the Church.[40] The second principle to be observed is that we cannot propose an interpretation of the tradition that comes from the apostles that is at variance with what the magisterium has already ruled definitively to be the doctrine of the Church. From what we have seen so far of Groome’s work, it is clear that he has failed to conform to these Catholic principles governing the interpretation of the Word of God.

In his recent encyclical on the Eucharist titled Ecclesia De Eucharistia (EDE), Pope John Paul II was concerned, amongst other things, to reaffirm Catholic doctrine regarding the link between the celebration of the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood. In stating his purpose in issuing the encyclical, the Holy Father said:

“It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery.”[41]

In EDE, Pope John Paul II warned against tendencies to obscure “the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession” for any valid celebration of Eucharistic mystery.[42] In stating that the Eucharist originates with Christ, the Holy Father added that “it was entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles and has been handed down to us by them and by their successors.”[43] Coupled with this, the Pope stated that the ministerial priesthood “effectively came into being at the moment of the institution of the Eucharist.”[44]

After stating that “succession to the Apostles in the pastoral mission necessarily entails the sacrament of Holy Orders, that is, the uninterrupted sequence, from the very beginning, of valid episcopal ordinations,”[45] Pope John Paul II added in EDE that the “assembly” gathered together for the celebration of the Eucharist “absolutely requires the presence of an ordained priest as its president.”[46] In saying this, the Holy Father pointed out that “the community is by itself incapable of providing an ordained minister,” since “this minister is a gift which the assembly receives through episcopal succession going back to the Apostles.”[47]

Catholics believe that through the consecration in the Mass the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. This aspect of the Eucharistic mystery has always been adhered to in the Church founded by Christ. Hence, in the teaching of Trent we read:

“It has always been the conviction of the Church of God…that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.”[48]

Since the Eucharist can only be confected by those who have had the ministerial priesthood conferred on them by way of an “uninterrupted sequence of valid episcopal ordinations”[49] going back to the Apostles, it follows that Groome is in contradiction of Catholic doctrine when he asserts that “sacramental powers” resided in the whole community which “chose certain people to preside at divine worship for the sake of ‘holy order’.”[50] Indeed, Pope Pius VI taught that it is “heretical” to assert that “the power of the ministry and of ecclesial rule comes to the pastors from the community of the faithful.”[51]

 Apostolic Succession

As noted earlier, Groome claims that “the function of bishop as we might recognise it today did not begin until the second century.”[52] In Sharing Faith, he quotes Raymond Brown with apparent approval where in reference to the celebration of the Eucharist he says: 

“There is simply no compelling evidence for the classic thesis that…there was a chain of ordination passing the power of presiding at the Eucharist from the Twelve to missionary apostles to presbyter-bishops. How one got the right to preside and whether it endured beyond a single instance we do not know…”[53]

In reference to what he terms the “Tridentine perspective” on “ministry”, the most significant aspect of which was its emphasis on the tripartite division of ordained ministry according to the ranks of bishop, priest and deacon, Groome in Sharing Faith says:

“New Testament evidence suggests…the Tridentine perception of ministry is much more the product of history and of the sociocultural contexts in which the church found herself than of any blueprint to be found in the New Testament communities.”[54]

Regarding the presence in the New Testament of bishops, priests and deacons, the Council of Trent declared: “If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church there is not instituted a hierarchy by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, priests and ministers - anathema sit.”[55] The term “ministers” used in this passage is synonymous with the word “deacons”.[56]

While the words “ordained” or “ministerial” priest do not appear in the New Testament, equivalent terms such as presbyteroi (presbyters) do which initially meant “elder ones” or “elders”. The Greek word presbuteros is rendered in Latin as presbyter, which translates into French as pretre  and hence the English word priest. Also, those who received the power of the apostolic ministry from the Apostles were called “episkopoi” which primarily used to mean “overseers.” The English word “Bishop” comes from this Greek term “épiskopos.” In the New Testament it is not always easy to distinguish between “presbyters” (elders) and “bishops” (overseers).[57]

As Pope John paul II has stated, the Apostles knew that it was “Christ’s will that they provide for successors, who as their heirs and representatives, would continue their mission.”[58] Vatican II says: “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the apostles left bishops, as their successors. They gave them their own teaching authority.”[59] The Apostles, adds Vatican II, “consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves,” and to these men they gave “the order that, when they should have died, other approved men should take up their ministry.”[60] Finally, on the question of apostolic succession, Vatican II stated that bishops are “regarded as the transmitters of the apostolic line” in virtue of an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.”[61]

We see how leaders were appointed in the early Church in the account of the institution of “the Seven” in Acts 6:1-6. The initiative is taken by “the Twelve” who “called a full meeting of the disciples and addressed them” (Acts 6:1-2). It was the apostles who suggested to the “community” how problems between the “Hellenists” and the “Hebrews” should be resolved. St. Luke says that “the whole assembly approved this proposal,” and after electing suitable candidates to carry out the assigned tasks, they then “presented these to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.” (Acts 6: 5-6). Note how it is the apostles who confirm the “Seven” in their office, the “community” has no authority to make such an installation.

Elsewhere in the New Testament where the institution of ministers is referred to, there is no mention of a community role in the process. For example, as the Church took root in Antioch the apostles sent a representative named Barnabas (cf. Acts 11:22). After his conversion, St. Paul went with Barnabas to Jerusalem as the “ecclesial centre of authority to confer with the apostles.”[62] From Antioch, Barnabas and Paul were sent out on an apostolic mission after the apostles had “laid hands on them” (Acts 13:2-3).

As the early Church grew, the apostles appointed “presbyters” whose responsibilities are defined in detail by St. Paul in his pastoral letters to Titus and Timothy whom he appointed as heads of their respective Christian communities (cf. Acts 24:23; Tit 1:5; 1 Tim 5:17).[63] After the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles sent to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas two men named Silas and Judas who were considered as “leaders among the brothers” (Acts 15: 22).

The bestowal of the apostolic ministry was effected through a special sacramental rite involving the laying on of hands through which the special gift of the Holy Spirit was transmitted. In this regard, St. Paul said to his disciple Timothy: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Tim 1:6), and "If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task" (1Tim 3:1).[64] To Titus he said: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,” adding that “a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless…he must hold fast to the sure doctrine and also refute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:5-9).

The principle of apostolic succession at work in the New Testament Church is evident in St. Paul’s farewell discourse to the presbyters of Miletus. Here we read: “Now be solicitous for yourselves and for the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as bishops to pasture the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Cardinal Ratzinger notes how this text illustrates “that the Holy Spirit places men in this office: it is not a delegation on the part of the community…but the gift of the Lord, who gives personally what only he can give.”[65]

The task assigned to those who succeeded the apostles in their apostolic ministry is threefold: i) to proclaim the Gospel (cf. 2 Tim 1:8, 13; 2:2; 4:2, 5; 1 Tim 4:11, 13; 6:20); ii) to exercise direction of liturgical service (cf. 1 Tim 3:9; 4:13); iii) to lead and guide the community (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; 5:17-19; 1 Pet 5:1-4). This office is perpetuated down to our own day where the bishops, as legitimate successors of the apostles, are empowered to teach, sanctify and govern those placed under their pastoral care.[66]