A Jagged Little Pill
November 28, 2007
I’m still digesting this, and hope to post some reflections about it sometime in the near future.
The World Crept into the Church
The apostle John writes to the first Christians: “Do not love the world and the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 Jn 2.15-16).
But the day would come, when the Church would want to be powerful with the same power of the world and wise with the wisdom of the world and rich with the riches of the world. And God “has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts” (Lk 1.51).
Emperor Constantine was baptized and the religion of Christ, until then persecuted, humiliated and poor, became the religion of the State. Churchmen were linked to the empire and conflicts and divisions penetrated the Church of Jesus Christ.
Bishops of Rome would be popes “gloriously reigning” and the successors of Peter, Paul and the other apostles, formerly persecuted until martyrdom, would be enthroned in churches, opposite the emperor. Pontiffs, here and there, qualified as Princes of the Church, would borrow imperial regalia: the tunic, the cappamagna, the toga, the crook, the miter or imperial crown, taking the place of the robe of mockery, the reed of derision, and the crown of thorns imposed on Christ in his passion.
And more, the successors of the apostles, whom Saint Paul qualified as “despised, being hungry and thirsty, refuse of the world, offscouring of all things” would seek the easy life, comfort and luxury; they would enrich themselves, and have themselves honored as a privileged class. In brief, they would seek to install themselves at best in the “earthly city,” forgetting “the city which is to come” (Heb 13.14). They would have themselves acclaimed without ceasing in each office and on each occasion by this wish for long life: Ad multos annos! Eis polla eti! For many years, Master! One would say that the dearest wish for the successors of the martyred apostles is to live indefinitely on earth.
Considering all this, what do we have in common with those “vagabond” apostles of Christ, Paul, Peter and the others?
And the hierarchs, charged with communicating the life of Christ to men, would one day, with the connivance of emperors, arrogate to themselves the right of life and death over the children of God, unscrupulously executing those who did not share their opinions and the letter of their faith, forgetting that faith is a gratuitous gift of God.
These are not the type of men who would gather believers around the crucified Jesus and the Eucharistic table and who would bring about communion of hearts and spirits, as enjoyed by the first Christian communities. It is necessary to seek this communion from the “little brothers” and the “little sisters” of Jesus Christ, either in hidden cloistered life, or in the midst of the world, in obscure and daily labor of fathers and mothers who generously bear the concerns of a family, living from day to day.
No, Christian unity would not be brought about by pastors of the churches, of whom it is written: “Awake, O sword against my shepherd,…says the Lord of hosts. Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered” (Zech 13.7).
Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections, pp. 7-8
November 29, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Great article. Just some brief thoughts.
The Church is at the same time servant and teacher as Our Lord is at the same time servant and King. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, in my opinion, and one can be both at the same time. Kings and Queens can be saints as well, like Louis of France.
The conversion of the Roman Empire and the raising of the status of the Christians from persecuted cultists into the mainstream did of course result in some loss of the heady challenge of being underground Christians, always in danger of death and denunciation. It perhaps reduced the immediate physical self sacrificial nature of such a profession of faith. But are we really saying that Christianity is meant to be that way externally, always reduced to a persecuted minority? Isn’t the call to self sacrifice always present, be it to the shedding of blood or to the patient forgiveness of unjust wrongs, to be pilgrims in the world, living in it and yet not be a part of it?
Persecution is with us all the time and prince-bishops can quickly find themselves leaders of a persecuted underground Church like the bishops of China, the Ukraine and various other countries that have fallen under Communism in the recent past testify. But the key question, for them, for their priests and faithful as well as for us is whether we would keep the faith, despite the cost.
Churchmen were linked to the empire and conflicts and divisions penetrated the Church of Jesus Christ.
Actually, if one were to study the Scriptures and history of the early Church, we would realize that such conflicts and divisions have always been with us and will continue to be with us until the Parousia. Even in apostolic times, not their successors, but the very apostles of Our Lord themselves had to deal with and endure conflicts and divisions within the Churches they had founded and nurtured. The myth of an all pure all loving early pre-Constantinian Church is merely that, a myth. That does not mean that being mainstream did not make conditions more conducive to division based on politics, but that being mainstream is not the esse of it.
Remember also that being above ground allowed for the convening of various Councils to clarify and define the Apostolic faith which drew a clear line between orthodoxy and heresy and exposing both to the light. It was the Imperial link and imperial support, including paying for it, that logistically made this possible. Some Councils created schism and some healed it, but it would be unfair to characterize Imperial links directly with divisions in the Church.
Bishops of Rome would be popes “gloriously reigning” and the successors of Peter, Paul and the other apostles, formerly persecuted until martyrdom, would be enthroned in churches, opposite the emperor.
Christ Our Lord Himself was gloriously reigning from the Cross and was born King and was in fact King and is still King whether in swaddling clothes or enthroned at the right hand of the Father. The reign of the bishop, in the diocese over which he presides in love as Father in persona Christi, is the same reign with which he is supposed to serve as the least and servant of all. The bishop still presides in love as Father whether over the Church in the catacombs sitting on a rock or in a house church in the best stool which the household has to offer as he represents Christ. Likewise, the Church wants to honour the Lord with the best that it can offer, so too the Church would wish to exalt Her hierarchs as representatives of Christ and servants of Christ and enthrone them as such with the best seats available in the basilicas when they preside when such things became possible. Emperors too bow before the bishop who represents Christ. That does not mean that without the externals and splendour of the post-Constantinian Church, the bishops were not honoured to the best of the ability of the Christian Church over which they presided. It is a matter of degree, not of kind. Pope were gloriously reigning since Peter, in spirit, though not outwardly.
Remember too that not being under the threat of immediate persecution freed the Church to send missionaries to countries where Rome had no direct jurisdiction and being the official religion of the empire meant nuts. The evangelization of England and Germany, for example. And long after Constantine, Popes and bishops and patriarchs were still persecuted for the Apostolic faith by civic leaders from Arian emperors to Napoleon, so the threat of persecution always remains.
And more, the successors of the apostles, whom Saint Paul qualified as “despised, being hungry and thirsty, refuse of the world, offscouring of all things” would seek the easy life, comfort and luxury; they would enrich themselves, and have themselves honored as a privileged class. In brief, they would seek to install themselves at best in the “earthly city,” forgetting “the city which is to come” (Heb 13.14). They would have themselves acclaimed without ceasing in each office and on each occasion by this wish for long life: Ad multos annos! Eis polla eti! For many years, Master! One would say that the dearest wish for the successors of the martyred apostles is to live indefinitely on earth.
This touches on the internal thoughts and dispositions of which another cannot know. Being “despised, being hungry and thirsty, refuse of the world, offscouring of all things” is not a pre-requisite to being a Christian and disciple. Bishops are successors to the apostles as teachers and witnesses of Christ and the Resurrection. They are not successors to the Apostles as vagabonds. =) That is not the essence of who they are.
One can be all that, persecuted and acclaimed as a martyr even but be proud in their heart while the Pope himself, in all his earthly splendour, could be humbler than a vagabond at heart.
Would the Divine Sacrifice be give more glory to God if celebrated with unworthy vessels and on the floor? Or would the recognition of Christ in the Sacrament make one burn with the desire to honour Him and His ministers who act in His stead fittingly in the Divine Liturgy? The Liturgy is not about the ministers but about Christ who is the Priest and Victim. What does it say of us if we mistreat God’s ministers, make them wear rags to serve Him and put His representatives in the lowest place? All honour poured out on His ministers is honour poured out to God through them. Sure, the Mass can be celebrated in any old place, but knowing its true nature, why would we do that? Would we not instead construct as fitting a place as we can make to house the Holy Mystery? How would dishonouring God’s ministers give glory to God?
God’s command was to honour our Father, our spiritual no less than our biological and therefore Christians from the beginning have sought to honour their spiritual fathers, who labour in God’s vineyard.
And the ad multos annos part was just cheeky.
Considering all this, what do we have in common with those “vagabond” apostles of Christ, Paul, Peter and the others?
We share the common Faith in Christ Jesus, which excels all else as we jointly confess the Catholic Faith and acclaim Jesus Christ is Lord. When the day comes that all the externals have to be given up for the faith, so be it. But whilst it lasts, let us use it to glorify God as well. Being a vagabond externally is not a requirement of discipleship. Let’s not make martyrs of ourselves unnecessarily and refuse all God’s blessings as curses and wallow in self created and self imposed wretchedness acclaiming it a special blessing and favour of God. God is not a sadist. And he did not command Moses to construct the Tabernacle in the Wilderness out of rotting sticks not commanded that Aaron serve Him in his underwear. The important thing is why such as such is worn and the disposition of the wearer and not what is worn. Note for example the vesting prayers of the Roman Rite. But what it worn serves as a reminder of who the wearer is, a priest of Jesus Christ acting in persona Christi.
And the hierarchs, charged with communicating the life of Christ to men, would one day, with the connivance of emperors, arrogate to themselves the right of life and death over the children of God, unscrupulously executing those who did not share their opinions and the letter of their faith, forgetting that faith is a gratuitous gift of God.
That is not a function of the episcopate. Let their motive be examined and see whether they had put the spiritual life of the people ahead of their physical life. Faith is a gift of God, but Faith must also be preached and heard to be believed. And so too the poison of heresy that would lead astray immortals souls. Cases such as these much be examined on the basis of their individual merits.
Many times, these physical actions against the heretics were carried out by the state whose authority was undermined by dissent from the Church which was tied to the stability of the state. Oftentimes, religious dissent contained elements of political dissent as well. Of course violence cannot be used to preach the faith for confession under duress is no real confession at all. And for this sin on the part of the sons and daughters of the Church, Pope John Paul has apologized. On our part, it would be a little presumptuous to judge, not knowing the conditions, and not knowing what our own response would be if we were in that position.
These are not the type of men who would gather believers around the crucified Jesus and the Eucharistic table and who would bring about communion of hearts and spirits, as enjoyed by the first Christian communities. It is necessary to seek this communion from the “little brothers” and the “little sisters” of Jesus Christ, either in hidden cloistered life, or in the midst of the world, in obscure and daily labor of fathers and mothers who generously bear the concerns of a family, living from day to day.
Communion in Sacrament cannot be had when communion of faith is absent. What a person works as is immaterial and does not correspond to the depth of one’s faith.
No, Christian unity would not be brought about by pastors of the churches, of whom it is written: “Awake, O sword against my shepherd,…says the Lord of hosts. Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered” (Zech 13.7).
Again, the myth of the united and unified early apostolic Church. The Church needs the gifts and charisms of each and every one of its members who each possess a different gift and calling. Just as the Church needs the voice of the Little Flower does not mean the Tome of Leo is unwarranted. Each has their role to play, from “hidden cloistered life, or in the midst of the world, in obscure and daily labor of fathers and mothers who generously bear the concerns of a family, living from day to day” to bishops whose duty, charism and calling it is to teach, govern and sanctify God’s people, to apologists, defending the faith from intellectual attacks and giving a defence of our Christian hope, to missionaries, bringing the Light of Christ to the nations and even to Christian soldiers who put themselves between all the above and those who seek to destroy the faith by destroying the faithful.
Each has their part to play and exalting one over the other downplaying the importance of leaders can do no good. The Archbishop’s own position and authority give weight to his words and his charism and calling give his words a hearing. The same, written by “fathers bearing the concerns of a family” might not have provoked this discussion =)
The unity and unicity of the Church, Militant, Triumphant and Suffering comes from the life all receive from Christ, the Head of the Body. Bishops are focal points of that unity of the diocese and the Pope the focal point of unity of the earthly Church Militant. Strike at him and his effective authority to govern, teach and sanctify and you further fragment the unity of the Church of which he is the earthly primate as the divisions of the various Protestant ecclesial bodies have demonstrated.
BTW, I was born in Klang as well although I currently live in Penang. Great to meet a fellow Malaysian in the blogosphere. Cheers.