Today the Church celebrates a feast in honor of St. Matthias. Today's Mass features an engaging narrative on how he came to be counted among the apostles (Acts 1:15-17, 20-26):
Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers and sisters (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. Judas was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it. And: May another take his office. Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the Eleven Apostles.
This event takes place in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which shows how quickly the apostolic band realized what they had to do to carry out the mission. The Good News was not a personal revelation to those who were close to Jesus in his ministry, but instead, it was a message that needed to be proclaimed in all time and all places, thus needing a succession plan to assure its future proclamation. But was the new Church simply a social movement they were engaged in? Is twelve is a better number than eleven, because 'we always did it this way'? Was there a power vacuum that needed to be filled? I would say not--what the apostles were doing was rooted in the personal ministry of Jesus (they chose among the personal witnesses to the Resurrection), done in the midst of prayer, done in the pattern of the scriptures (with the reference to the Psalms), and guided by the Holy Spirit which was promised them and which manifested God's will in the lots. The Church continues to select successors in a similar way--more formalized, of course--but with these elements in place. But is this innovation authentic to the will of our Lord?
John Henry Newman, the 19th century English convert to Catholicism and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine that authentic innovations in the life and teaching of the Catholic Church can be identified against corruptions by looking for seven properties in the development: - A conservation of its type
- Continuity of principles
- Its Assimilative Power
- Its Logical Sequence
- Anticipation of its future
- Conservative action on its past, and
- Its "chronic vigour"
Newman observes that corruptions in the life of the Church do not stand the test of time, rather then burn themselves out and pass into decay. While he speaks of doctrine (and specifically not dogma), his comments can be interpreted rather broadly in the activity in the life of the Church. There are at least a zillion examples, give or take, of corruptions that have not stood the test of time in the life of the Church, but the only things I can think of right now are 20th century 'innovations': chasu-albs, liberation theology, Glory & Praise, little plastic Jesuses on car dashboards. (Ok, I'm being a little tounge-in-cheek here, but maybe that's an invitation to come up with better examples in the comments box... Avingon papacy, Womenpriests, anyone?)
And so, what of this 'innovation' of apostolic succession presented in Acts? It conserves the outward identity and function of the Church, it provides leadership continutity through the ages, it is an assimilated model for vocational discernment and development at all levels of the heirarchy, trusting the Spirit to guide at all levels of leadership, it is a response to need that makes sense, it provides for the future of the Church, while staying in line with the precedent of the past... that's continutity with the first six notes on development.
The seventh note, that a doctrine or practice shows "chronic vigour" appears to be true based on history alone, but consider Newman's deeper analysis about the nature of change in response to crisis or challenge in the authentic Church:
It is true, there have been seasons when, from the operation of external or internal causes, the Church has been thrown into what was almost a state of deliquium; [might anybody consider the betrayal of Judas as a particularly bad moment for the Church?] but her wonderful revivals, while the world was triumphing over her, is a further evidence of the absence of corruption in the system of doctrine and worship into which she has developed. If corruption be an incipient disorganisation, [e.g., choosing apostolic leadership from among fragile and broken men,] surely an abrupt and absolute recurrence to the former state of vigour, after an interval, is even less conceivable than a corruption that is permanent. Now this is the case with the revivals I speak of. After violent exertion men are exhausted and fall asleep; they awake the same as before, refreshed by the temporary cessation of their activity; and such has been the slumber and such the restoration of the Church. She pauses in her course, and almost suspends her functions; she rises again, and she is herself once more; all things are in their place and ready for action. [...by the grace of the Holy Spirit.] Doctrine is where it was, and usage, and precedence, and principle, and policy; there may be changes, but they are consolidations or adaptations; all is unequivocal and determinate, with an identity which there is no disputing. Indeed it is one of the most popular charges against the Catholic Church at this very time, that she is "incorrigible;" change she cannot, if we listen to St. Athanasius or St. Leo; change she never will, if we believe the controversialist or alarmist of the present day. [There's a positive and a negative examples of the "Church that doesn't change"... I'd rather be on the side of St. Athanasius, the champion over the Arian heresy, and St. Leo the Great, who vigorously defended the Church against its enemies, internal (monophysitism) and external (invasion of barbarians). These guys are enduring heroes from the Church's darkest hours... whereas "controversialists" and "alarmists" of today will simply fall away, as they always do.]
The Church is healthier by taking moments to pause and regroup. The Church expresses its 'chronic vigour' in how it overcomes its challenges while being faithful to the core of its being. As I write this, how fitting to use the institutional Church as a model for how to heal when the individual Christian needs to stand up after sin, tragedy, or loss... this may be another chapter in my series that I am writing on Christian perseverence... stay tuned.
Happy St. Matthias Day... this is the saint's day that demonstrates how the Church can change and mold itself in an orderly way towards the needs of the mission and in response to crisis under the power and leadership of the Advocate Spirit we call forth in this final age while awaiting the certain coming of our Savior in glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean. I reserve the right to use or delete any comments in any way I see fit. This ain't a democracy. Get your own blog if you don't like it.