Click on the triangular “play” button above.
27 minutes.
Subscribe to “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed | Download the mp3 file directly by right clicking
Was Paul a Catholic priest? Yes, he refers to his “priestly ministry” in Romans 15:15-16. He administered the sacraments, called himself a “steward of the mysteries”, and he was even celibate! Join us as we look at the priestly language of Paul’s Epistles.
claim-my-podcast-in-podbean{scid-dGF5bG9ybWFyc2hhbGw=-ecid}
Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth.
Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming).
Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com
Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com. 
This site is an outgrowth of my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul. It is based on the conviction that the Pauline epistles contain the primitive and pristine doctrines of the Catholic Faith. In the Pauline corpus we discover a Paul who is Catholic, a theologian who is sacramental, a churchman who is hierarchical, a mystic who is orthodox. Please enjoy the articles and listen to the talks ("PaulCasts") either directly in the site or via iTunes. Listen to Episode #1: RABBI SAUL BECOMES APOSTLE PAUL.
Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall
(www.taylormarshall.com)
Our home study group just got finished with studying Paul and he is an amazing saint. Keep the information coming. And good luck on your book.
volume’s too low
Nevermind, Taylor, it was my fault. It’s not you, it’s me. No, really, it’s me… Feel free to remove the comment above.
Good stuff. Some hard questions again:
1) Where is the idea of an indelible character in Paul? Isn’t it impossible to determine whether he thought the gift of the Spirit would leave if the minister went apostate?
2) Why doesn’t Paul call the ministers priests if he thought they share in Christ’s priesthood? Why doesn’t Hebrews talk about the ministerial priesthood offering the Eucharistic sacrifice? Why doesn’t Paul anywhere clearly connect the New Covenant priesthood with the Eucharistic sacrifice? Eg he never tells Timothy to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice with dignity and respect, though a Catholic would think that’d be the first thing Paul would tell a priest to do.
Emil,
The indelible character doctrine derives from Paul’s talk of “seal”.
I sense a confusion in your question: “Isn’t it impossible to determine whether he thought the gift of the Spirit would leave if the minister went apostate?” Here it seems like you’re using “gift of the Spirit” as “seal”. Am I wrong.
Clearly the gift of the Spirit does leave when a man is devoid of sanctifying grace, be he ordained or not. What does not leave an ordained man is the indelible character of Orders (which is distinct from the Holy Spirit).
Paul doesn’t call ministers “priests” directly because of the confusion with the Temple cult in Jerusalem. However, he speaks of them as priestly as I demonstrated in the podcast.
I’ve said elsewhere that the term “pater” and “presbyter” are priestly terms hearkening back to the priesthood of the first-born under the era of natural law (i.e. before the Exodus and the Old Law). This is my talk from last year’s Letter and Spirit, and I’ll try to put it up as a podcast soon.
Taylor, thanks for the clarifications! But does Paul connect the seal with orders? As far as I recall he only talks about the charism.
If Hebrews calls Jesus a priest and Peter calls Christians priests in spite of the temple cult in Jerusalem, why wouldn’t ministerial priests be called that as well? And why couldn’t Romans 15:15-16 apply to all Christians doing missionary work?
About the pater terminology, 1 Cor 4:14-15 doesn’t contain pater, but gennao, begetting terminology, which is connected but not the same. The point is that X has begotten Y in the gospel, X is the father of Y in the gospel. But not all priests have begotten all believers, so should we call all priests our fathers or only the one that baptised us? Paul doesn’t call himself a father apart from his work of begetting as if the fatherhood came from “orders”.
Paul only calls himself a father by analogy in 1 Tess but he also describes himself as a mother in the same way in the same letter. But we don’t call priests mothers.
And yes, please do try to get the rest online on the Christmas break! Thank you!
Hi Taylor,
These talks on the Apostle Paul are great! I really get inspired when I hear Catholics discuss the faith, especially those coming from previous Christian traditions who, then go and defend the faith with so much energy and passion. I learn a lot by listening to these talks.
Thank you!
Glory be to Jesus Christ! Magnificent! I love it when a Protestant Scripture Scholar becomes Catholic! Thank You. This podcast will be featured on my other website, wherethereispeter.blogspot.com
Certainly Act 26:28-29 does not indicate that St.Paul was a Catholic Priest.
RC apologists writing in their “fallible blogmas”, are up to their old tricks. Here’s a new one I never heard before, now being proclaimed by the current guest on EWTN’s “Journey Home”:
Was Paul a Catholic priest? Yes, he refers to his “priestly ministry” in Romans 15:15-16. He administered the sacraments [and] called himself a “steward of the mysteries”
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/07/…elf-to-be.html
Response: To begin with, Paul believed he had the right to take along a wife if he wanted to, per 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”.
If the apostles themselves had the right to have wives if they so chose, why do priests today not have the same right?
Second, Paul says in Romans 15:15 that he was given
“… to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God”.
Notice that this verse does not say anything about the office of a sacerdotal, sacrificing priesthood! Only because the word “priest” and “offering” are mentioned in the same sentence, Romanists pounce on it immediately to fit their preconceived theology. Here is a concise on-line commentary on that verse:
The office of a “priest” was to offer sacrifice. Paul here retains the “language,” though without affirming or implying that the ministers of the New Testament were literally “priests” to offer sacrifice. The word used here occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Its meaning here is to be determined from the connection. The question is, What is the “sacrifice” of which he speaks? It is the “offering up” – the sacrifice of the Gentiles. The Jewish sacrifices were abolished. The Messiah had fulfilled the design of their appointment, and they were to be done away. (See the Epistle to the Hebrews.) There was to be no further “literal” sacrifice. But now the “offerings” of the Gentiles were to be as acceptable as had been the offerings of the Jews. God made no distinction; and in speaking of these offerings, Paul used figurative language drawn from the Jewish rites. But assuredly he did not mean that the offerings of the Gentiles were “literal” sacrifices to expiate sins; nor did he mean that there was to be an order of men who were to be called “priests” under the New Testament. If this passage did prove that, it would prove that it should be confined to the “apostles,” for it is of them only that he uses it. The meaning is this:
Long had the Jews been the holy nation, the kingdom of priests, but now the Gentiles are made priests unto God (Revelation 5:10), by their conversion to the Christian faith consecrated to the service of God (i.e., they became the “offering” in the sense that they were now “living sacrifices, holy and acceptable as a result of their sanctification (Romans 12:1) that the Scripture may be fulfilled (i.e., “In every place incense shall be offered, and a pure offering” (Malachi 1:11).
No. St. Paul was not a priest. St. Paul was an Apostle an office that continued in the Church through the office of Bishop. Therefore, it would be more correct to state that St. Paul was a Bishop.
@mojo and Archpriest John Morris: Well, what kind of office is a bishop? A priestly office as well as one of overseer. I believe if you do a word study of the term, minister, you will find that it is a sacerdotal term. Is. 61:6, “But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” Jer. 33:21, “Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.” Then see Joel 2:17,”Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”
Mojo, when you refer to Catholic apologists as being up to their old tricks you betray a lack of good will and a hermeneutic of suspicion instead of a making a rational, well reasoned argument. No need for bombast to have a good argument. Thanks.
Special website, excellent pattern, very clean and work with pleasant.