The Extraordinary Synod (2014 Edition)

In light of the many articles and comments arising from I would like to offer some thoughts on the topic at hand that may be helpful for others who are (attempting to) follow the news on this issue. In any academic setting and even in every investigative setting one must first look at the source and, from there, investigate what others are saying about the source.

In this instance the "source" is not much of a source. It is a written document, yes, but as a written document it only serves to chronicle what has been spoken of at this time. This document carries with it no legislative power in the Church. Many people are surprised of the language used concerning homosexuality and others and have praised its content, but these praises are only sung by people who have no desire to investigate what the Church has already said. Websites, such as Human Rights Campaign, have opened up their article on the Relatio saying,

The preliminary but potentially ground-breaking document released today by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops asserted that LGBT people have “gifts and talents to offer the Christian community,” and, for the first time, referred to LGBT couples as “partners” instead of sinners.

Moreover the Huffington Post, "the bastion of quality journalism" as readers call it, reported that

A day after signaling a warmer embrace of gays and lesbians and divorced Catholics, conservative cardinals hit back strongly Tuesday (Oct. 14), with one insisting that an abrupt-face on church teaching is “not what we are saying at all.” ...
The summary document, presented to the media by Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo, immediately provoked the fury of conservatives about how he and his colleagues were interpreting the spectrum of views aired on the synod floor.

In typical fashion, holding a stance on anything is considered a sort of conscription into an ideology whereby one forfeits his reason and knowledge in favor of some safe and accepted rule. At least that's how I read this excerpt saying that 'finally those conservatives are getting some pushback.' Compassion and warmth can not, apparently, come from anyone considered "conservative." What I dislike about this article in particular is how it tries to pit two groups against one another.

Both conservatives and liberals have overreacted to this synod. Sadly it has become yet another instance where even the Church is labeled as having two camps. Catholics who can not debate topics with integrity and honesty, even if they get heated, are neither liberal or conservative but rather just bad apologists.


With that said I'd like to make a few points as there are those who have spoken to me saying, "Is the Church going to cave in to societal pressures?" while others have said, "Finally the Church is recognizing gays and homosexuals on (more) equal footing."


I. As Catholics we need to exercise patience.

All to often I think we forget that we live in history. With 2000 years of Tradition, traditions, and development we casually quote Nicea, Trent, and Vatican II among others as singular events. These were Ecumenical Councils that contained debate, (fierce) disagreements, and in the fire of competing intellects language refined six and seven times over. The Church does not shy away from disagreement, debate, and asking difficult questions.

The Acts of the Apostles ought to give Catholics some rest about how the Church proceeds. First the Church in local communities identify a problem of disagreement and proceed from there. But even in local churches there can be "no small dissension and debate between them" (Acts 15:2). Likewise, when brought to the assembly of Apostles and presbyters, there was still "much debate" (v.7).

Thus we as Catholics should not be afraid of debate because we never have been. While others may consider us to be doctrinally locked into a singular way of thinking this is far from the truth. Nevertheless we are constantly confronted with new information and problems. All of us share in the task of transmitting the faith with intentionality which includes us bringing the Gospel to each new problem.

This task requires patience. Just as Christ was rejected and accepted in His day we are no different. If we really do believe in the organic growth of the Church and her understanding, we ought to judge the fruit of this synod when it is in bloom, not now. In our patience we, meaning all sides, must listen to each other and be open to correction.

II. Homosexuals and others should be co-laborers to the Gospel

Homosexuals and others in more difficult categories are in a difficult spot. Many are isolated from the Church while those who do stand up for Church teaching are rejected as self-hating and enemies. Having grown up myself in environments where gays were ridiculed and, likewise, seeing how easy it is to demean those I misunderstood I have challenged myself in the following way:

=What is science (biology, psychology, etc.) actually saying about homosexuality?
=Can I, being critical enough to distinguish descriptive or ideological claims, understand the challenges they face if they do indeed wish to walk the path the Church does?
=Can I use this information to better understand human sexuality and our humanity?

We must be able to affirm the teachings of the Church on marriage and family while also being what we are called to be, one. I still recall being labeled as a certain type of person because I am from Chicago. I was told what my work ethic probably was among other things. Being labeled as having this or that moral quality, having this disposition, or other per-determined traits is not only insulting but about as reliable as "blood typology" common in many Asian countries.

It is easy to fall into the trap that "everyone deserves love" and that "who are you to say I can't have sex." Sex does not complete us, no matter how good it feels. What completes and perfects us is holiness. Our individual human perfection comes from both our vocation (what I, personally, am called to be by God) and a growth in love that imitates God's love.

Thus, when we work with others treat all persons with dignity and all ideas with scrutiny, carefully exploring how those ideas do or do not fit with the Gospel. "Test everything, hold fast to what is good" (1 Thes 5:21).

III. Be informed

This synod, while not the best PR episode we've had in a while, has opened up some discussion. Confusion has that effect sometimes. Can you as families sit down and discuss the synod? Can we as Catholics openly debate with ourselves and be vulnerable enough to acknowledge our ignorance on certain issues?

Nothing reveals ignorance better than conversation which is why most of us are usually silent, even among friends. We must fortify ourselves with humility and speak with one another about Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. More than that, we should not look with disdain at Rome or our Church as if they have nothing to teach.

The only way to abolish ignorance is through investigation and, after investigation, testing it against the intellects of believer and non-believer alike. Our children can teach us as can our elders. No one knows through whom the Spirit will speak and how, but no one is beyond scrutiny and testing. Love of knowledge is one thing, but a love of wisdom is another thing. Wisdom orders all things and no one receives wisdom except through prayer.

Some of us will assent easily and others assent with difficulty, but we should all be open to truth. No one will believe the Church has that attitude unless we practice it ourselves.

The Early Church II-1: The Martyrs

(This is the extended, written version of a presentation I gave on 4/30/2013. 

This is II-1. If you haven't read "The Early Church I" yet, I would recommend it. All links are at the bottom of this article.)

Prologue

Last time we examined the message of Christianity and how it was presented to both Jew and Gentile. The message of Christ was a message of dignity, divine sonship and daughterhood, and a noble mission, namely the salvation of all in the name of Christ Jesus.

This, however, came with many difficulties. There were many who refused to hear the message. Others simply saw God as one among many appropriating what was profitable to them in the Christian message. Others reacted violently. Of these three, it may seem strange to hear that the second problem, corrupted teaching, was actually the most destructive to the Church. While there were those who were outside the Church who simply selected a few points and incorporated them into their pagan theology there were plenty of Christians who, because of culture, (both abundance and lack of) learning, and zeal, caused a great deal of trouble by their words.

In order to counteract these false teachings and bad influences the Church, beginning with the Apostles, established very quickly a structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in order to preserve and protect the content of the Apostolic faith. The bishop was a direct descendent of the Apostles, a relationship we'll explore later on. It was through the office of the bishop that we became known as “Catholic” and it was only around such a man that the Church was said to be. “Tradition,” likewise, properly understood was not only the words and actions of Christ but also the words and actions of the Apostles and their successors who were given a unique office (cf. Acts 1:20) by Christ (cf. Jn 20:19-23). Peter among the Twelve was given an important ministry and office. The title bishop means “overseer” and Peter was appointed overseer of his brothers. He exercised this authority clearly in Scripture yet, as Christ proclaimed, he did not lord over them (cf. Lk 22:25) but rather acted as a supreme example to his brothers and his flock (cf. 1 Pet 5:5).

Christians were likewise persecuted in waves of varying intensity from the Church's inception at Pentecost until 313 AD, after the persecutions of Diocletian. Christ, however, said it plainly: “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me … whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:23-24). Peter said his disciples, “Since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same attitude” (1 Pet 4:1) and “Do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening. Rather, rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly” (1 Pet 4:13). Paul says it even more simply, “All who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12).

This brings us to the opening of our discussion: the martyrs. In what manner did their witness to Christ shape the early Christians and the Church? Likewise, what problems did they cause for the Church moving forward?

II-1: The Martyrs

The word martyr literally means “witness” yet that witness is more than proclaiming Christ with our words or good deeds. This is the witness that testifies to Christ crucified in the most concrete way: by giving up one's life in the same manner Christ did. Christ died for love of us, the martyrs died for love of Christ and neighbor—even persecutor.

Death is something that was trivialized in the Roman Empire just as it is today. The delight in the fall of one's enemies, the desire to oppress those who fought but no longer can, to see those whom we hate suffer cruelly for their injustice are all forms of bloodlust. The Romans were desensitized to blood, perhaps more than we are, because their violence was very real and designed, at its worst, to humiliate and break their captives. 

Not to mention entertainment.

Imagine, now, a group of men and women who stood in the face of death proudly. Rather than cowering in fear and succumbing to cruelty they openly proclaimed Christ. They prayed for their enemies and would not let death itself keep them from the One they loved. They acted as if life itself was an obstacle to their ultimate goal and that the threat of death held no sway. To a people soaked in blood and self-centeredness this was a shock to their system. With such a sharp contrast to their way of life two responses resulted: (1) even greater and inflamed hatred or (2) a complete conversion of heart. Very few could stand by indifferent to the example of the martyrs.

Before we examine the martyrs we should keep in mind a few aspects: not every Roman leader hated Christians, nor did every governor or provincial enact laws of persecution—Christians were in many places model citizens, and in many cases Romans sought to dispel a sect or a cult by killing their leaders. There was little effect to killing scores of common men and women. Priests, bishops, deacons, and those admired by the community were sought above the laity (Courtesy of Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 222).

Let us examine in sort, then, how the Church viewed martyrdom. While we ourselves can say many nice things about the martyrs it is worthwhile to examine how our Church Fathers and Scripture regarded the power and significance of them. It will help us, in turn, understand how Christians of that period responded to and sought the martyrs.

Justin Martyr, an apologist and martyr of the Church was a well educated man with an extensive knowledge of philosophy. Justin cited one of the reasons for his conversion in his 2^nd Apology: “I was delighted in the teachings of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, [I] saw that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate person, or whoever counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments[?]” (2^nd Apology, sec. 12).

The common conception of Christians at this time (2^nd century) was that they were atheists and cannibals. All manner of slander and myths were circulated about Christians so that they seemed to be enemies to humanity and to the state. For example: Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, said that Christians were “a sect that hates the human race” (Annals 15:44). Yet in the face of hatred many men and women showed love. In the face of cruelty is was the Christians who showed themselves to be civilized. It remains an important lesson for us today; the world will see us as enemies and fools and in these instances our words and actions should be as blameless as they can. When our adversaries comment on our faults, sinfulness, and errors accept them as a blessing. When we can present His message without fault—as best we can—the the words of others against His message are destined to fall. Time will reveal their lack of wisdom.

Modern examples exist in abundance.

Scripture likewise conveys this to us. The first martyr, Stephen the deacon, stands before a hostile crowd speaking in the Spirit. It says “his face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) and yet his words of condemnation to the wicked were like a sword. “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. … You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it” (Acts 7:51, 53). As the crowd raged toward him he looked up to heaven, giving thanks that he should suffer for Jesus' name. He forgave those who killed him and, after his death, “devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him” (Acts 8:3).

Interestingly in this story is that Scripture says “I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” and “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit” (7:56, 59). Would there be any doubt his spirit was received? Christ on the cross proclaimed to the repentant thief “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43, cf. Mt 37:45-56). If Christ said this at the request of the penitent sinner do you think he would deny the request of the one who, filled with His Spirit and dying for His name, would be refused any request?

To this effect, and to answer this question, I present a story relayed to us by Eusebius, the earliest 'historian' of the Church. Writing in the 4^th century he was considered the “Father of Church History.” All histories written around this period and after him by other Christians begin at the end of his work as if to acknowledge his writing (cf. Penguin Classics version, xviii, 1989).

He writes many accounts of persecutions and martyrs, one which I think will be useful to consider in brief:

Potamiaena was a virgin and martyr who was condemned along with her mother for being Christian. She “and her mother Marcella found fulfillment in fire.” Her mother was killed and she was subject to a number of humiliations and tortures. A soldier in her midst, Basilides, seized her and led to her to place of execution. The crowd pressed around her seeking to strike her while insulting her but Basilides drove them back and showed this woman “the utmost pity and kindness.” Potamiaena, accepting his sympathy told him that “when she had gone away she would ask her Lord for him, and it would not be long before she repaid him for all he had done for her. … She face her end with noble courage—slowly, drop by drop, boiling pitch was poured [over her]. Such was the battle won by this splendid girl.”

Some days later Basilides was asked by his fellow soldiers to take again the military oath by which they all swore. He refused saying he was a Christian. They thought he was joking, but he asserted all the more of this fact. His comrades threw him in prison and those from the Church visited him there asking him the reason. He told them that “three days after her martyrdom Potamiaena stood before him in the night, put a wreath about his head, and said she had prayed for him to the Lord, had obtained her request, and before long would place him by her side.” At once those present baptised him and on the next day he was beheaded. It was said that in Alexandria, where all this took place, many other came to believe having seen this same girl in their dreams calling them to Jesus Christ. (see Eusebius, EH 6.5).

In this brief story that I've paraphrased we see a number of things: the courage of a martyr, her influence while living, and her power when she had life eternal. The martyrs were said to work miracles after their deaths and be catalysts to many conversions. Such interactions, that is saints speaking to others after their death, are not explicitly in Scripture, however, so how shall we consider this story?

We recall that in Revelations that there were those who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night” (Rev 7:14-15). But it says later on that “I saw thrones and those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God … They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years [that is, for this Age] … blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first Resurrection. … they will reign with him for [the] thousand years” (Rev 20:4-6).

Prayer to the saints is effective not because the saints have power on their own, but because in their total loss-of-self in martyrdom they were given a share of the throne of Christ in this Age. All of it is for our benefit.

The first thousand years is not a literal time but an expression of forever (or, for the duration of this Age). We remain in this period of the first “thousand years” whereas the new heavens and new earth is the Age-yet-to-come, the Resurrection of the Body. Indeed, while we remain as pilgrims here on earth there were those, as Scripture attests, who sit on thrones with Christ. The ones on thrones are the ones martyred in the name of Christ. That they sit on a throne means they have power, and their power is precisely their intercession with Christ on behalf of all souls on heaven and earth. For it was not Christ himself who converted Basilides, but rather Christ through a young girl who converted him. This story relates that the ever-living martyr did not desire power nor did she seek revenge on her persecutors. Like Christ who proclaims “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15) she called others to do the same. All of us too are called to be witnesses to Christ—some will witness by our lives, others by our deaths.

Martyrs across the whole empire produced this effect. Perhaps one of the most famous martyrologies that has come down to us is the Martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop to the Church in Smyrna (which was a Greek city in Ionia at the time). He was an old man when he was martyred, perhaps 80 or 85 at his death.

This account, however, was written in the 4^th century (perhaps 310 AD) while he is believed to have been martyred in the 2^nd century around 155 AD). This account has been shown, over time, to not give us any real historical knowledge of Polycarp, but the story itself allows us to see a number of things: (1) the great character of the man written about, (2) the practices concerning such men and women by the faithful, (3) the pride communities took in such examples of their faith. Much of what we get about Polycarp can be gathered from the letter to the Philippians attributed to him, what Ignatius of Antioch says of him in his letter, of various fragments, most notably by his great admirer and fellow bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.

With this being said as an aside, I will select a few quotes that, while not strict history insofar as the exact events described are not historical, they are history insofar as they convey the attitudes of a Christian people. I think you'll see how it correlates with the story above.

Concerning Polycarp's martyrdom it says that the act was “certainly a mark of true and steadfast love, not only to desire one's salvation, but that of all the brethren as well” (Martyrdom, sec. 1).

Those who martyred Polycarp kept his body from those who sought it because “many … were eager to [lay hold of him] and have a share in his holy remains” (Martyrdom, sec. 17). This one indication of relics we have early on, but such an indication also comes from Scripture—that the articles of holy men and women, and that which touched them, had power associated with them. It says “So extraordinary were the might deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face clothes or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

The reverence given to and practices concerning the martyrs is encapsulated nicely here: “[We] took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and more excellent than gold, and interred them in a decent place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom—his birthday—both to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train and prepare the heroes yet to come” (Martyrdom, sec. 18).

Of Polycarp himself it was said “Of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one—an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna” (sec. 16).

"Your life among the Gentiles must be beyond reproach; thus by your good example you will win praise for yourselves, and the Lord will not be blasphemed on your account" (Letters to the Philippians, sec. 16).

Next, we shall see how even with such courageous witnesses the Church faced problems as a result of their impact. We'll examine how such difficulties arose and the response, in brief, of the Church.


===

Links to "The Early Church I: "History, Morality, Being Called Catholic, and the Papacy"

I-1: Prologue and History
I-2: Organization of the Early Church 
I-3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons)

Links to "The Early Church II"

II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession
II-4: The Rule of Faith 

The Early Church I-3: Being Called Catholic

Before you read this, have you read sections 1 and 2?

They may be found here:
Section 1: Prologue and History
Section 2: Organization of the Early Church
Section 4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

Part I-3: Why “Catholic”?

We must now place ourselves at this pivotal point in history. The last of the Apostles has died, the Church is flowering in various pockets around the Empire, and many men and women of different cultures heard of Christ and are coming to Him and His Church. The men who were given authority by the Apostles are in their first, second, or third generation depending on the area. Persecutions came in periodic and violent waves which aim to strike fear into those who hold to the teachings of the Church. Priests and bishops are targeted to scatter the flock.

One can not understand the importance of the use of name “catholic” unless he also understand the primacy of Peter and the papacy. The papacy is perhaps one of the greatest stumbling block among Christians—how could one man claim to be above all others? —what so important about what Rome thinks? —why should my local concerns be any concern of the Pope? Many other questions, doubts, and derision are hurled in Rome's direction. While I couldn't possibly quell every single difficulty, I can present to you how the bishop of Rome was regarded by the early Church.

Whoever wishes to study their faith or grow in it would do well to study St. Peter.

We have already seen that the bishop to the early Christian (for the most part) was a sign of authority. While we have only seen a few authors in this matter, it is important to note that the institution of bishop, priest, and deacon has persisted for nearly our whole history. Bishops could not necessarily use force or a standing army to enact their will at this time. They relied on the consent of their people to their ministry, which many gave them. Bishops, we will recall, were men selected by the people and tested by the previous leaders to be men of virtue and the Spirit. Bishops were not respected merely for their office but because they were worthy of respect.

In the Acts of the Apostles some communities had argued whether or not Gentiles must become follow the Mosaic covenant before they enter into a covenant with Christ in baptism. Paul and Barnabas, well respected as they were, could not resolve the matter (cf. Acts 15:2). They decided that they would go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and presbyters there. The disagreement continued, and “after much debate, Peter got up and [addressed them]” (15:7). Peter pronounced definitively the action the counsel should take. James bolstered this decision by assent and the rest of those gathered agreed to the new proposal. They claimed that “it is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond [what is required]” (15:28).

This passage establishes a number of things in our history and should be reviewed carefully. We notice that a problem was presented to the early Church and from there, when it could not be resolved locally, it was brought to the universal Church—that is to say, its focal point was the gathering of the Apostles. In this gathering a great deal of debate took place, but it was Peter who spoke first—a biblical sign of importance when among a group. When Peter spoke all fell silent, which itself is a sign of assent with what had been spoken. All those present acted in harmony with Peter and the Church then sent each bishop and his priests to their local communities to deliver the decision to all member of the faith.

Learned men of faith, the Apostles and presbyters, gathered together to discuss a policy and rule that would be shared among all churches.

It should be said briefly that Peter is essential to this discussion, for some may ask “why is Peter so important?” There are two passages that establish his importance, and both passages are Christ speaking to Peter. The first is when Christ foretells Peter's denial. Christ confides in him that he and the Apostles would be scattered. Christ prayed personally for Peter's faith that it would not fail. Christ says that “once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32). Peter turned away, but as Christ foretold he turned back. Peter, likewise, strengthened his brothers by his example. He was the first to speak for all at Pentecost, and in the post-resurrection narratives, whenever a group and Peter are gathered Peter usually speaks first and often for the group. The second is clearly the most famous, and should be taken in conjunction with all Peter does in Acts along with the Apostles. Christ first blesses Peter and then says “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18). The authors of Scripture had a preference for Peter because Christ had a special mission and preference for Peter. His primacy was evident in Scripture and it was evident by early Christian authors.

Among these early authors an interesting pattern confronts us. When Peter is mentioned, usually Paul is not far behind. Both were considered to be the greatest disciples because each one spoke with power and authority. Both traveled extensively and both were martyred for the faith after enduring many trials. Both performed miracles, raised someone from the dead, and performed many great works. Ignatius of Antioch says “Not like Peter and Paul do I issue orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free[.]” (Letter to the Romans, sec. 4). Ignatius in another letter, however, says “[Christ] came to Peter and Peter's companions [i.e., the Apostles]” (Letter to the Smyrneans, sec. 3). 

Paul, a great and mighty Apostle in his own right, realized he was not a member of the Twelve. He knew that the Holy Spirit was with him and he acted rightly. All the same, for his own assurance and as an example to all the faithful, he “went up in accord with a revelation, and [he] presented to them [the leaders in Jerusalem] the gospel [he] preached to the Gentiles—but privately to those of repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain” (Gal 2:2).

Paul's judgment was correct, and he even rebuked Peter's conduct, yet he still sought him and the other Apostles in Jerusalem to confirm that his actions were in accord with the whole Church. Paul, in his greatness, submitted himself to the council of the whole Church. As I have just recounted, that council in Jerusalem is where Paul and the Apostles discussed and gave each other council and where Peter had pronounced the final decision by all as binding.

The first time that Catholic is ever mentioned in the history of our Church as a unique title is in conjunction with the office of bishop. We have seen that the office of bishop was one of authority—this is made known by Paul in his various letters. While presbyters, or priests, were present to give counsel to the bishop and Apostles, it was the Apostles who held the final say. As we have seen tradition was also tied up with the bishop. Catholic is united to the office of bishop just as Tradition is.

I have gone over Peter in order to convey a truth of the Catholic Church, namely that when many are gathered in council there must be one who is able to speak definitively and with authority about matters important to all. When all were gathered into one place, such as the council of Jerusalem, it was Peter who spoke with authority. This was true before the Holy Spirit came upon them (cf. Acts 1:15ff) and after (Acts 2: 14-47, esp. vv. 38-41).

When the Apostles, most notably Paul and those whom he wrote to, were in their own territories and churches they were the local authority. This is seen most simply in Paul's letter to Philemon, who is a “co-worker” of Paul (i.e., a bishop) and is addressed to the “church at your house.” Paul pleads with him to act accordingly, but Philemon is the authority in his local church (See also Acts 14:23).

This is where “catholic” enters the scene. It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch around 105-108 AD. As I mentioned above, the bishop was crucial to the life and unity of as well as those whom he appointed to the tasks of that local area. St. Ignatius writes definitively: “ You must all follow the lead of the bishop, [just] as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; … Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold agape [i.e., Eucharist]; but whatever he approves is pleasing to God" (Letter to the Smyrneans, sec. 8).

“Catholic” is tied up with many things: the Eucharist, what we believe about Jesus Christ, various doctrines, but the term is used most directly with living in concord with one another and living in concord with the bishop. In many cases, being Catholic is most difficult because we have to trust in a humanity that is lead by the Spirit. This does not mean humanity will never err, but it does mean that we trust in the special grace given to the Apostles by Christ and in turn those Apostles to their successors. Christ entrusted His Church, both His bride and His Body, to human beings. Humanity while weak and limited is that same humanity Christ died for. Christ entrusted His mission to all who are baptized, but he entrusted the care of His Church to those shepherds that He Himself had chosen. The shepherds were the bishops, for the name itself means “guardian” and “overseer.”

Finally, we shall see how this culminated in the establishment of Peter in Rome.

The Bread of the Eucharist: A Bland Reality?

 Some may say, whether they are Catholic or not, "Why is the ‘wafer’ and the ‘host’ so bland?"

Perhaps instead of us thinking of the Church as being cheap, stupid, or boring we should look at the intentionality behind the act. The host being “bland” is symbolic. See that the bread is, for us, a sort of deprivation. It is not special, it does not have an exceptional flavor, and with respect to other foods it is bland. But this is exactly the comment that the Church wants to make about Christ: that he became flesh like us. In comparison to the divine our flesh is cheap, and fallible, and bland. This does not mean that that our flesh is “bad” just as this normal bread is not “bad.” Christ, however, by his graciousness took on our weak and fallen humanity to raise it up. We proclaim through our very bread that humanity is simple and lacking, but not bad—in fact the body may be used for holy work and sacred things.

The bread that we receive is not merely a symbol, but it is a symbol given to us for our benefit—it is meant by means of earthly concerns to direct our mind to heavenly truths. Christ adopted our humanity so that God might adopt us. He “took the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:7) which is to say he was unassuming, common, and everyday. Even the people at the synagogue doubted his power when they asked “Isn’t he the son of Joseph?” (cf. Mt 13:55, Jn 6:42) In his common estate, however, Jesus expressed the power of the Spirit by virtue of his obedience to the Father.

God, incarnate in common humanity, confounded those who would never believe that the body could be redeemed or divinized. To those who believe, however, the bread we have stands as a powerful comfort to us who are still pilgrims.

More powerfully, Christ left us the Eucharist so we might partake of him for our whole lives. The Body of the Sacrifice was resurrected so that we might make continual sacrifice to the Father and that it might be one sacrifice all the same. This is because the Body we offer to the Father is His own, and the Body we offer can never be destroyed or pass away. For “when he became perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Heb 5:9). “Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body” (Mt 26:26). He did likewise with the cup, saying it was his blood.

The early Church herself attests to this reality. When Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies (circa 182 AD) the Eucharist was an important mark of the true Church:

The Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. ...[and we truly offer the first fruits of creation, that which is most loved] ... how can they [the heretics] say that [our] flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? ... Our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. (Book IV.18.iv-v)

Irenaeus of Lyon didn't treat it as if it were simple bread.

Indeed, the Gospel of Luke relates to us the power of this most precious treasure. As the men from Emmaus leave Jerusalem Jesus meets them. Jerusalem is the image of the heavenly city, it is the place where Christ proclaims himself the Temple and where he sacrificed himself. The cross stands there, and thus heaven through the cross. The men meet him and Jesus walks with them. Even Scripture is explained to them and their hearts are on fire, but they do not turn back. It is only when Jesus “was with them at table, [took bread], said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight” (Lk 24:30-31). Does it not seem strange that Christ should vanish? But in the end he did not vanish: “this is my body, this is my blood.” They set out at once back to Jerusalem to proclaim that “he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread” (24:35). Yes, not even Scripture revealed this to them, but the bread.

Recognize our savior in the breaking of the bread in new ways. Reflect not only on the spiritual truths, but what the physical experience of it all relates to us.

Mary Most Holy

When I have debated with others about the Genesis narratives of creation one comment that emerges is the similarities of those narratives to other creation narratives, most notably the Enuma Elish in Babylonian mythology. This similarity for some is proof enough that the Biblical account is merely one among many accounts or that it simply stole from their captors but made minor changes (The Enuma Elish predates the written Biblical account).

Many Christian scholars now believe that the similarity in construction is intentional and that the Genesis account is structured close to the Babylonian myth in order to act as a theological polemic. When one puts both accounts side by side it seems as if the syntax is nearly identical—for the undiscerning mind. The slight changes of both tone and process reveals a delicate construction on the part of both authors, Babylonian or Hebrew. Contained in simple mythological language are commentaries about creation, the nature of man, the nature of God (or gods), and much more. In reading both I have always found that the Hebrew account was in all ways more fascinating, powerful, and rich. This is not simply my allegiance to Christ but also simply taking both narratives by the power of their own arguments. The Biblical account has the advantage of being the “response” so to speak, but some of the best and most compelling arguments are the ones that sound almost exactly like your opponent but turn the whole issue on its head. The Genesis accounts, both of them (but more the first), share this excellent quality.

This is a perfect example of someone who has taken the time to align the syntax of both stories in such a way so as to situate them as merely a historical occurrence. Indeed, at face value they are nearly identical when seen in this way. What the author of this rather long and not un-scholarly article fails to consider is "why" and "how" the stories are presented.
If the author does not believe in God (or discounts a perspective of belief) those questions are irrelevant anyhow. See the comments at the bottom of this article to see how others treat it. For them it's not a matter of it could be true, or that the construction is intentional, but that it's human, all too human. (Article)

I give you this example as a way of introducing a thought of mine on the great and beautiful account of Mary. It is not the fruit of years of research or devotion—I have not had the grace others who experience an intimate relationship with Mary in their prayer—but I must admit that as I grow older I am drawn more quickly to reflect on her maternal love and anguish, both of them intensified beyond my comprehension by virtue of her son, Jesus Christ. What I want to propose is that the Evangelists, men who knew Scripture and indeed had the Spirit working within them, chose a similar approach of expressing Mary. I do not deny the historicity of the Annunciation but I found it worth my time reflecting on the parallels between Mary's mission, as it were, and the mission and commission of others in Scripture. The similarities tie her into a greater narrative and the differences set her apart. This was a conscious choice by the Evangelists but also, in my mind, their indication of a most unique specialness of Mary in the whole of history.

Her uniqueness often lies in what makes her most unnoticeable.

I will focus on Luke who has a special interest in Mary. Luke also is kind enough to give us the whole paradigm by relating the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to his father Zechariah. This narrative alone has strong parallels in Abraham's call and promise of a son. When the angel of the Lord told them that their wives would bear them a son Abraham laughed and Zechariah said “How shall I know this? I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years” (Luke 1:18). This is the response of mankind, from ancient times immemorial to the present day. God promises the fantastic and impossible and we shake our heads both stupefied and incredulous.

At first glance, it would seem Mary's response is no different: “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (Lk 1:34). This is a problem for English that masks this profound difference of Mary. In the Greek (I won't bore you with all the details) Zechariah asks “how shall I know this” as if to say 'unless I know how can I believe?' This is why the angel silences him, literally, saying “Now you will be speechless … because you did not believe my words” (Lk 1:20). Mary, on the other hand, responds with the verb “estai” in Greek which perhaps colloquially means “how can this be” but has the force of “it shall be, how shall it come about?” Zechariah asked how will he know (gnosomai) whereas Mary asks with that powerful verb 'to be' “how will it come to pass?” Already, in this small juxtaposition we see in Mary that there is no tension between her and the message of God. This is why she can say afterward “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).

We take for granted the circumstances of this passage. After all, an angel of the Lord presents himself to Mary and she trembles as every other man and woman had in all of Scripture. Yet when she is addressed there is no hesitation.

More curious and fascinating still is that in nearly every narrative that deals in a special call is preceded by an admission of the speaker of his weakness. Jeremiah declared he was too young (Jer 1:6), Abraham that he was too old (Gen 17:17), and Moses that he could not speak well (Ex 4:10). Mary, on the other hand, says nothing of her unworthiness in any fashion. Even Isaiah who readily exclaimed “Here I am! Send me” recalled that he was a man of “unclean lips from a people of unclean lips.” Mary, however, not only accepts the word of God but finds herself fully capable from the outset of doing it. The angel says nothing of her unbelief. Rather, Mary asked and the answer was given to her because of her faith. She knew it was not to be done according to her knowledge but His word.

A Flemish painting of the announcement of a son for Abraham. He seems to be saying, "What? With her?" He laughed when God suggested it and thus his son was named "Issac" which roughly means "he laughs."

There are a wealth of examples I could bring up about the stark contrast of Mary to the rest of the holy men and women cataloged in Scripture, such as her name remaining the same despite the gravity of her task (contrary to Peter, Paul, Abraham, Israel, etc. whose names were changed). The question we must ask ourselves when contemplating Mary, her role, her importance, and her significance is “what does it mean?”

Was it arbitrary? For the believer to say such a thing about Scripture is foolishness. Much like Genesis, when we see that the argument is constructed like the others we are lulled into a false security and sense of familiarity. The account of Mary is not a polemic as such, but it is a theology-rich exposition (history). It is constructed like all the others in order to magnify the differences. As to the question “what does it mean,” which is a worthy question for each line of Scripture, she clearly meant a great deal to Luke. The early Church furnishes us with further reflection on Mary and what she meant to them. They were ready to call her the “New Eve” for if sin first entered the world through the disobedience of man and woman then it is only right that through the obedience and humility of a man (Jesus) and woman (Mary) that salvation was made available to all. Augustine expresses this sentiment in his book “On Christian Teaching,” albeit seemingly unfair to women, by saying “The disease [sin] entered through a corrupted female mind; healing emerged from and intact female body” (Book I.13.xxix).

There are too many great images that seem to me to relate Mary's purity in a way that only an image can convey.

For it is not our place to simply say our salvation is “through Christ alone” as if to say “nothing else matters.” Rather, it is better to wonder at “God chose that His only begotten son would be born of a woman and bear our entire human estate.” I do not diminish Christ's supreme and necessary role. What I am saying is that we must examine, marvel, pray, and give thanksgiving for how he chose to effect His grand designs. Where men are often moved by grandeur God chose to enter in all humility. Likewise, where many in Scripture wanted to control the situation they were in (and in the process doubt God) Mary became a perfect conduit of grace by virtue of her obedience and humility.

On this, the Holy Day of the Immaculate Conception I thought it would be worthy to devote some time to reflection on Mary most holy. There is far more to say than my meager words here. I only leave this with you to look at Mary as I see her (or perhaps as I'm beginning to see her). No other human being can claim to have known Christ in his full humanity or divinity than his mother who loved him with all the intensity of motherhood and suffered on account of his suffering more than anyone can comprehend. Woman is the crown of creation and Mary the queen of humanity. May her resplendent example lead us to Jesus Christ her son and to God almighty.