The Universal Call to Holiness

During the prayers of the Mass we hear the priest say;

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness.

Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eucharistic Prayer II).

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church the council fathers define the Church as the “the universal sacrament of salvation” through which the faithful are joined to Christ and are nourished with His own Body and Blood (LG 48). By being joined to Christ through Baptism, Confirmation and reception of the Holy Eucharist and we become one with Christ.

St. Augustine comments on the deeper significance of our oneness or communion with Christ in his commentary on Psalm 26. He notes that the practice of anointing in the Old Testament was normally reserved for either the king or the priest. But Christ now holds both offices as both Priest and King in virtue of his anointing or literally being the Messiah or Anointed one. Speaking of Christ, St. Augustine observes, “But not only was our Head anointed; but his body was too, we ourselves. . . . From this it is obvious that we are the body of Christ, being all anointed. In him all of us belong to Christ, but we are Christ too, because in some sense the whole Christ is Head and body” (Exposition 2 of Psalm 26).

We not only become like Christ in Baptism but we actually become a New Creation which is joined to the New Adam—Christ Jesus. This is not a mere exterior conformity but an interior transformation which results in us in a sense becoming Christ himself.

St. Augustine notes that, “all who have been anointed by his chrism we can rightly call christs and yet there is one Christ: the whole body with its Head” (City of God XVII, 4). As the Catechism reminds us; “The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ" (CCC 1547).

Our participation in the Holy Eucharist makes us partakers of the “fount of all holiness” and in the person of the ‘Holy One of God’ (John 6:69). Christ shares his priestly soul with us. The council Fathers emphasize this even of the laity, “The supreme and eternal Priest, Christ Jesus, since he wills to continue his witness and service also through the laity, vivifies them in this Spirit and increasingly urges them on to every good and perfect work” (LG 34).

As a result of this the council fathers inserted an entire chapter on the ‘Universal Call to Holiness.’ (LG 39-42). By virtue of our Baptism, every single Christian, regardless of their state of life, is called to be holy. As the council fathers note; “Therefore in the Church, everyone whether belonging to the hierarchy, or being cared for by it, is called to holiness, according to the saying of the Apostle: ‘For this is the will of God, your sanctification’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3; cf. Ephesians 1:4)” ( LG 39). Although there are many different gifts and vocations in the Church, no one can escape the call to holiness. We might be tempted to differentiate priests and religious from laity and to think that the laity are just ordinary folk who have no special calling. We do not want to down play the unique call to holiness of bishops, priests and deacons, or of those who live as religious. Yet these callings do not let ordinary Catholics off the hook. There are no exclusions from the call to holiness. As the fathers note, “The classes and duties of life are many, but holiness is one—that sanctity which is cultivated by all who are moved by the Spirit of God, and who obey the voice of the Father and worship God the Father in spirit and in truth” (LG 41).

Perhaps the most misunderstood of notion of holiness is its application to the lay faithful. In the Decree of the Apostolate of the Laity, the council fathers note;

In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but a oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.

They exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel. In this way, their temporal activity openly bears witness to Christ and promotes the salvation of men (AA 2).

The lay faithful are to be like leaven in the midst of the world. Our daily work then can be a means of our personal sanctification; a means of sanctifying others and a means of bringing about the sanctification of the whole world. One modern Saint who has emphasized these ideas is St. Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei.

At his canonization, Pope John Paul II called him the Saint of Ordinary Life. Saint Josemaría repeatedly emphasized: “you have to sanctify your work, be sanctified in your work, and sanctify through your work.” He noted that work is “the hinge on which our calling to holiness is fixed and turns” (Friends of God, n. 62). For the lay faithful, holiness begins in the daily grind of our ordinary life.

Lumen Gentium: The Mystery of the Church

Each of us derives a great deal of personal meaning from our family name, our work, and our friendships. If someone were to say to you, “Tell me about that person” we would refer to our personal knowledge of these qualities. When the Council Fathers wish to describe the nature of the Church in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, they began by examining ideas found in Sacred Scripture and in the Fathers of the Church. To some extent it was like discovering new qualities about someone we thought we knew well. In relation to our knowledge of God, we learn a great deal about him through our worship. It is very appropriate that this Constitution on the Church immediately follows the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. In his earlier writings as a Cardinal, Pope Benedict notes that;

“The Constitution on the Church, which then followed as Council’s second text, should be seen as being inwardly bracketed together with it. The Church derives from adoration, from the task of glorifying God. Ecclesiology, of its nature, has to do with Liturgy.” (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 126).

In an earlier session of the council, Bishop Emilio Guano, of Livorno suggested that the Pauline term, ‘mystery’ (Ephesians 5:32) would be an appropriate scriptural expression to describe the fact “that the external visibility of Church, like the holy human nature of Christ, both conceals and reveals the inner divine reality of the Church, a reality which surpasses all knowledge." Pope Paul VI opened the Second Session (September 29, 1963), with the words, "The Church is a mystery, a mystic reality, steeped in the presence of God." After much discussion the Fathers placed the title “The Mystery of the Church” before the first chapter of the Constitution repeatedly referred to the Church as a Mystery. For example in in LG 5 we read, “The Mystery of the holy Church is manifest in its very foundation” (cf. LG 5, 39, 44, and 63).

Bishop Kloppenburg, a Peritus of the Brazilian Bishops at Vatican II observes that the official explanation given to the bishops in 1964 read:

"The word 'mystery' in this context does not indicate simply that a thing is unknowable or hidden. Rather, as many authorities recognize today, it points to a transcendent, divine reality that has to do with salvation and that is in some sensible way revealed and manifested. The term, therefore, which is found in the Bible, is very suitable as a designation for the Church."

Bishop Kloppenburg notes that, “the expression, ‘the Church is a mystery,’ means that the Church is a divine, transcendent, and salvific reality which is visibly present among men.” The Greek word ‘mysterium’ has as its Latin equivalent ‘sacramentum.’ The definition of mystery is very close to that of the definition of sacraments as “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.” (CCC 1131).

The opening paragraph of Lumen Gentium notes; “. . . Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission.” (LG 1)

The Church is an instrument of sign in the world of God’s saving presence. Writing shortly after the council, Joseph Ratzinger comments;

“Instead of the legalistic view that sees revelation largely as the issuing of divine decrees, we have a sacramental view, which sees law and grace, word and deed, message and sign, the person and his utterance within one comprehensive unity of the mystery.” (Commentary on Vatican II, Vol. III., p. 171.)

The focus of this theme is on Christ as a witness or Light to the Nations, as the title Lumen Gentium suggests. As the Council Fathers suggest;

God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity. While it transcends all limits of time and confines of race, the Church is destined to extend to all regions of the earth and so enters into the history of mankind (LG 9).

The Church is the “the universal sacrament of salvation” through which the faithful are joined to Christ and become "partakers of His glorious life” who are nourished with His own Body and Blood (LG 48). The Greek word for this union or fellowship with Christ in his body is ‘koinōnia.’ It has been variously translated as ‘fellowship,’ ‘communion,’ or ‘participation.’

St. Paul uses this expression in 1 Corinthians;

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (koinōnia) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation (koinōnia) in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

Concerning this verse Cardinal Ratzinger observes that the word ‘koinōnia,’or ‘communion’ implies a sacramental dimension. A theology of the Church understood as ‘communion’ is in its inmost nature a Eucharistic understanding of the Church. At the Extraordinary Synod for the twentieth anniversary of Vatican II in 1985, the Fathers of the synod observed that the central and fundamental idea of the Vatican II documents was that of koinōnia/communion. They observe,

Fundamentally it is a matter of communion with God through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. This communion is had in the Word of God and in the sacraments. Baptism is the door and the foundation of communion in the Church. The Eucharist is the source and the culmination of the whole Christian life (cf. LG 11) The communion of the Eucharistic Body of Christ signifies and produces, that is, builds up, the intimate communion of all the faithful in the Body of Christ which is the Church (1 Cor. 10:16).

This ‘communion,’ (which the Fathers of the Church describe with the Latin term, ‘communio,’) is nothing less than a sharing in the inner exchange of love within the Trinity itself. We are transformed by our communion with Christ and as a result given a share in Christ’s mission to the world around us.

The Question of Language

In the popular imagination the move away from Latin in the Mass to modern English is one of the most striking results of Second Vatican council. Was this change really intended by the council Fathers or was it a mistake? At the council the use of modern language translations was a very contentious issue. The Bishops appear to have had three options;

1. Retain Latin only universally (following Trent),
2. Continue Latin with some limited vernacular,
3. Allow a complete move to the use vernacular.

One person I know quoted the following section of, Sacrosanctum Concilium, in support of the idea that only very limited use of English (or other modern vernacular languages) was ever intended by the council Fathers.

“The use of the Latin tongue is to be maintained in the Latin rites, except where some special law obtains” (SC 36 §1).

On the surface the Bishops appear to have voted to continue with Latin. Further research on the background of this question reveals a different answer. The use of modern languages in Mass was especially important to the Catholic Melkite rite who wanted permission to use English in its liturgies in the United States in 1960. The Catholic Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV appealed directly to the Pope and received permission to use English except for the Anaphora (March 31, 1960).

Even before the council there were debates among those who wrote the schema, or prepatory documents brought to the council. The pre-conciliar Commission on the Missions proposed the following principle, “From Scripture we know that all languages are ordered towards the praise of Christ. Such praise is expressed especially in the liturgy, where the law of intelligibility of liturgical language for all gathered was stated by the Apostle. A diversity of customs and of rites has always existed in the Church, showing most clearly the riches of the Church’s unity.” (History of Vatican II, Vol. 1. 217). It would seem the motivation for this was not to reform European liturgies but to advance the gospel in missionary situations.

The pre-conciliar Commission on Liturgy established a sub-commission De lingua latina which was to consider three questions:

Whether Latin was to be fully retained; whether the use of the vernacular was to be allowed, and how clerics could be trained in Latin in order that they might understand and use it effectively (History, 1.218)

The Secretariat for Christian Unity proposed “the widest possible use of the vernacular” in the Mass and Sacraments. (History, 1.220). Cardinal Bea, the head of the commission, responded vigorously, “We must strongly oppose the idea that Latin is a sign of unity. It is more a sign of uniformity than a sign of unity.” (History, 1.220).

In December 1961, Pope John XXIII entered the debate by writing an apostolic letter in praise of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music and its defense of Latin in solemn liturgies. In February of 1962 the Pope signed the Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia which encouraged the teaching of Latin in clerical studies.

Many thought this settled the question and the draft schema brought to fathers read, “The use of Latin in western liturgy is absolutely to be preserved” but this was accompanied by continued calls for vernacular in the Mass, in the rituals, and especially for the in the Divine Office.

An interesting intervention at the council took place on this issue. During the debate the Melikite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh rose and spoke to the council. He recommended changing the wording of the schema so that it would read that Latin was “the original and official language of the Roman rite” and that Episcopal conferences should have the power in this matter to “decide, subject to approval of the Holy See.” This speech was greeted very favorably. When the final text was approved, the fathers passed over the first request with very little change to the schema but included the second request. Again on a surface reading the council Fathers appear to have voted to continue the Latin tradition with only limited vernacular, but the second change made it possible for local bishops and Episcopal conferences to choose to implement much wider use of the vernacular at their discretion (with Vatican approval).

In order to understand the intension of the restriction; “The use of the Latin tongue is to be maintained in the Latin rites, except where some special law obtains” (SC 36 §1), one must also consider what is written later in the text. There are three places later in Sacrosanctum Concilium which affirm the authority of bishops and bishop’s conferences to make decisions in adapting the use of Latin. Unlike Trent which required uniformity, Sacrosanctum Concilium allows for regional diversity and the possibility for legitimate inculturation into modern languages such as English.

Having said this all of this, it is quite clear that the Bishops could not have predicted the sweeping changes that would occur as a result. The idea that the whole church would move to the vernacular rapidly and so completely was I think, not imagined. For example in SC 54 the council Fathers noted,

“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

In relation to the three options presented above, the council fathers were clearly not trying to maintain Latin only. It is also not accurate to say they were only authorizing very limited use of vernacular. The Council authorized individual bishop’s conferences to decide on the use of the vernacular with the Holy See’s approval. It is also implied that any official changes that were made after the council must have had the Vatican’s approval. Strangely it is also not accurate to say the Bishops intended to allow a complete move to the use of vernacular. It is probably most accurate to say they intended to authorize diversity and the possibility of greater use of the modern languages but envisioned that Latin would continue to be used to some degree. The exact mixture of modern languages and Latin is not specified, but I suspect they intended a considerable amount of the Latin to remain.

Oriented Toward the Infinite Beauty of God

The first part of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy focuses on the meaning and beauty of the liturgy (SC 1-13), and the active participation of the faithful in the liturgy (SC 14-20). The remainder of the constitution focuses on specific reforms. In regard to these reforms, the Council Fathers note;

 

 

There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing (SC 23).

I would like to focus here on the reforms which relate to the use of sacred art in worship. The Book of Revelation which completes the text of the New Testament ends with a curious passage regarding the new heavenly Jerusalem of eternity. Speaking of the heavenly city, St. John writes;

The nations will walk by its light, and to it the kings of the earth will bring their treasure. During the day its gates will never be shut, and there will be no night there. The treasure and wealth of the nations will be brought there, but nothing unclean will enter it . . . (Revelation 21:24-27)

Most of us have never considered that some aspect of human culture or some human artifact might have eternal significance. To be counted in this category it would have to be some holy and pure ‘art’ which reflects the infinite beauty of God. Philosophers have viewed goodness, truth and beauty as three self-evident and interconnected qualities in our world. Theologians have seen these qualities as a reflection of God’s own perfections. God himself is the “original source of beauty.” (Wisdom 13:3). The Swiss theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar complained that our modern world has tried to quietly jettison ‘beauty’ from this list. He warns that in a world where we can no longer see or reckon with beauty, “the good also loses its attractiveness” and “the self-evidence of why it must be carried out” is also damaged (Glory of the Lord, I:19).

The Council Fathers note in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that the fine arts are among the noblest human activities because their purpose is an attempt to portray by the work of human hands the infinite beauty of God (SC 122). They distinguish between religious art and sacred art which is much like the distinction between a poem and a prayer. The ‘sacred arts’ involve the “sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation (SC 127).”

The Fathers note that at a diocesan level there are three separate areas of concern which are all interrelated; the sacred liturgy, sacred music and sacred art. The Council Fathers suggest that these areas of concern require thoughtful and coordinated leadership (SC 46). Today perhaps the most neglected and misunderstood aspect of worship is that of sacred art (SC 122-130).

The Fathers urge that we favor and encourage art “which is truly sacred” and which strives “after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display” (SC 124). Earlier, in reference to the rites of the liturgy, the Fathers used the expression “noble simplicity” (SC 34). This could lead someone to conclude that the Fathers of the council were advocating a minimalist or even anti-art stance. The idea that “noble simplicity” justifies a kind of Calvinist stripping of the altars and removing the statues and art, would be a clear misunderstanding. The expression “noble simplicity” is a catch phrase coined by the German archaeologist and art critic Johann Joachim Wincklemann (1717-1768). The expression in this context refers to Wincklemann’s observations about the elements of form and beauty found in classical Greek sculpture. Wincklemann inspired the Neo-classical movement in art which imitated the forms of classical Greek statuary. Noble simplicity would imply the use of the perfection of human beauty and “sedate grandeur in gesture and expression” which reveal the greatness of the soul beneath the passion of the figures.

Tempering such an understanding of art the Fathers note;

“The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites” (SC 123).

At the same time they also caution against a completely undisciplined and unprincipled notion of art,

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense” (SC 124).

The Fathers advocate a moderate and thoughtful use of sacred images (SC 125) and even the consultation of art experts (SC 126). Sacred art should have organic connection to the forms already existing in sacred tradition (SC 23), reveal the “infinite beauty of God” (SC 122) “edify the faithful”, and “foster their piety and their religious formation” (SC 127). As mentioned above, sacred art needs to join with the sacred liturgy and sacred music in “redounding to God’s praise and glory” with the “aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God” (SC 122). Sacred art is never merely art for art’s sake, but art in the service of the human soul as it contemplates the beauty of God.

Fully Conscious, and Active Participation

On December 4, 1963 the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was approved by the Second Vatican Council by a vote of 2,147 to 4, but the reforms proposed by this document did not suddenly arise there on the floor of the Council. Pope Paul VI noted, “The liturgy was the first subject to be examined and the first, too, in a sense, in intrinsic worth and importance for the life of the Church.” Dr. Pamela Jackson has pointed out that this Constitution “did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, but was the culmination of over a hundred years of research, reflection, writing, and pastoral work of the Liturgical Movement.”

Beginning in the 1830’s, groups of people in various countries were participating in what has been called the Liturgical Movement. This movement was attempting to recover the original sources of the liturgy. As earlier as 1903 Pope St. Pius X commented that in order to acquire the Christian spirit the “first and most indispensable source” is “active participation in the sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church” (On the Restoration of Sacred Music). In 1947 Pope Pius XII wrote Mediator Dei, the Church’s first encyclical on liturgy. He noted that “The worship rendered by the Church to God must be, in its entirety, both interior as well as exterior.” (Mediator Dei, 23). Pope Pius XII comments on how Christ himself offers the liturgy:

The sacred liturgy is, consequently, the public worship which our Redeemer as Head of the Church renders to the Father, as well as the worship which the community of the faithful renders to its Founder, and through Him to the heavenly Father. It is, in short, the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.

He connects this idea to the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and notes that the Church prolongs the ministry of Jesus by means of; the sacred liturgy, the sacraments and by offering to God, “the daily tribute of her prayer of praise.” (MD 3)

Our lives should be centered on the Eucharist, enriched by the other sacraments and overflowing with prayer and contemplation in the midst of the world. As the Fathers of Second Vatican Council later repeat; “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14).

The ultimate purpose of the liturgy is to make present the Paschal Mystery.  The Fathers of the council note later in the Constitution that through the liturgy and the sacraments the faithful are given graces which sanctify almost every event in their lives and that “they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power.” (SC 61).

The phrase “fully conscious, and active participation” became a kind of “sound bite” or “catch phrase” after the council but many people fail to note that the line continues “. . . which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” (SC 14).

That which is “demanded by the very nature of the liturgy” has been carefully defined by the Constitution in paragraphs 5 through 13. We are called to reverently enter into the re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery to meet the risen Christ present in the minister, the proclamation of the Word, in His sacramental Body and Blood, and in his Body the Church.

In his work The Spirit of the Liturgy Pope Benedict reminds us that “active participation” does not mean that as many people as possible, as often as possible need to be externally involved but that everyone takes part in the sacred action of liturgy. Remember that the term “active participation” was originally used in 1903 and 1947 in relation to what we now call the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. As the Holy Father points out, “the word ‘participation’ refers to a principal action in which everyone has a ‘part’.” This action is primarily interior.

St. Augustine views our common partaking of the Eucharist as a participation or ‘communion’ with Christ’s sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:16), and a sharing in Christ’s immortality. St. Paul refers to the notion of sacrifice in Roman’s twelve, where he writes:

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2).

St. Augustine comments on this passage in his book the City of God.  He interprets this sacrifice as the soul rising up in contemplation of God and being transformed by this union. The soul becomes “a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remolded in the image of permanent loveliness” (City of God, X.6).

The first part of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy concentrates on the meaning and beauty of the liturgy while the rest of the document proposes specific reforms. I will discuss some of these reforms in part two of this piece.

Pope Benedict’s Thoughts on Second Vatican Council, as he saw it.

On February 14^th, 2013, Pope Benedict gave a warm unscripted talk the clergy of Rome. He reminisced about his time at the Second Vatican Council as an official peritus or expert.

Pope Benedict first addresses the reform of the liturgy noting that prior to the Council there had developed almost two parallel liturgies. He notes, “The priest with the altar-servers, who celebrated Mass according to the Missal, and the laity, who prayed during Mass using their own prayer books, at the same time, while knowing substantially what was happening on the altar.” The Fathers of the Council sought to renew the liturgy through “a rediscovery of the beauty, the profundity, the historical, human, and spiritual riches of the Missal.” Pope Benedict notes that “it became clear that it should not be merely a representative of the people, a young altar-server, saying ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’, and so on, but that there should truly be a dialogue between priest and people: truly the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people should form one single liturgy, an active participation, such that the riches reach the people.”  He notes, “I find now, looking back, that it was a very good idea to begin with the liturgy, because in this way the primacy of God could appear, the primacy of adoration.”

Pope Benedict also highlights two great principles of the reform, intelligibility and active participation. He cautions the clergy against some common misunderstandings of these principles;

Unfortunately, these principles have also been misunderstood.  Intelligibility does not mean banality, because the great texts of the liturgy – even when, thanks be to God, they are spoken in our mother tongue – are not easily intelligible, they demand ongoing formation on the part of the Christian if he is to grow and enter ever more deeply into the mystery and so arrive at understanding.  . . . Only ongoing formation of hearts and minds can truly create intelligibility and participation that is something more than external activity, but rather the entry of the person, of my being, into the communion of the Church and thus into communion with Christ.

The second theme Pope Benedict addresses is that of the Church. He notes that the Council Fathers intended to follow Pius XII and complete the vision of the Church that had occurred at Vatican I by focusing on the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope Benedict observes, “People were beginning to realize that the Church is not simply an organization, something structured, juridical, institutional – it is that too – but rather an organism, a living reality that penetrates my soul . . . and a building block of the Church as such.”  He notes that in saying that “we are the Church” this notion was not intended to emphasize a particular “we” or a single group that calls itself Church.  Rather it “requires me to take my place within the great “we” of believers of all times and places.” To emphasize this in a structural manner among the bishops the word “collegiality” was adopted. This notion does not emphasize power but “the complementarity of the different elements” and “the completeness of the corpus of the Church with the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, as structural elements.” In addition to this the Fathers pointed to the theme of the Church as the “people of God.” Initially this is an Old Testament theme about Israel and only by entering into communion with Christ, and by being one with him, do the nations become God’s People.

Later what is clearly the central concept of the Council came to light as we reflected on this great theme. He notes that;

. . . the link between People of God and Body of Christ is precisely communion with Christ in Eucharistic fellowship.  This is where we become the Body of Christ: the relationship between People of God and Body of Christ creates a new reality – communion.

The third theme was the debate over the problem of Revelation. Benedict calls the Constitution on Divine Revelation “one of the finest and most innovative of the entire Council” with its insistence that “only in this communion of the living Church can one really understand and read the Scripture as the word of God.” Pope Benedict insists, “Only if we believe that these are not human words, but God’s words, and only if there is that living subject to which God spoke and speaks, can we interpret sacred Scripture properly.”

Finally Pope Benedict addresses the theme of Ecumenism found in several Declarations and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. He notes that the importance of these documents has been demonstrated only after decades and we are still working to understand their interlinked themes.

In closing Pope Benedict makes an important distinction between genuine intensions of the Council Fathers and what he calls the Council of the Media. Pope Benedict elaborates;

While the Council of the Fathers was conducted within the faith – it was a Council of faith seeking intellectus, seeking to understand itself and seeking to understand the signs of God at that time, seeking to respond to the challenge of God at that time and to find in the word of God a word for today and tomorrow – while all the Council, as I said, moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith, with a different hermeneutic. It was a political hermeneutic: for the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between different trends in the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the expression “People of God”, power for the people, the laity.

The Hermeneutic of Reform?

Did Vatican II create a new Church? On December 22, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI gave a now famous Christmas message before the Roman Curia in which he cautioned against a widespread historical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council which posited that there was a break between the preconciliar vision of the Church and the post Vatican II vision of the Church. He described this as the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.” A hermeneutic is a method of interpreting history. Pope Benedict was expressing concern that certain scholars were treating Vatican II like a new political constitution that created a new Church which was radically different from the previous Church. Hearing this comment some have thought that Pope Benedict is arguing for what seems to the opposite view “a hermeneutic of continuity.” Recently , a professor at the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome, has pointed out that this is not the case. He notes;

In the Pope’s address, there is no such opposition between a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" and a "hermeneutic of continuity". Rather, as he explained: "In contrast with the hermeneutic of discontinuity is a hermeneutic of reform…" And in what lies the "nature of true reform"? According to the Holy Father, "in the interplay, on different levels, between continuity and discontinuity". (Nova et Vetera, English Edition, 9.4 2011)

In studying the documents of Second Vatican Council it is important to see the historical context of the council and to understand the manner in which the Fathers of the council brought ideas from various currents of contemporary thinking into their discussions. Fathers of the council did not directly use the term “reform.” Three terms were used at the council that touched on the notion of change. The first was the Italian term aggiornamento (Italian for ‘bring up to date’). This term came from Blessed John XXIII and should be understood in the context of his opening address to the council. The second term is a French word ressourcement (meaning ‘return to the sources’). This term had in mind a return to the text of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers in order to deepen our understanding of the Church. Although originally the ressourcement movement was thought to be somewhat of a novelty the movement began to know as the Nouvelle Théologie or French for New Theology. Many now famous theologians from this movement were involved directly or indirectly as ‘experts’ at the council: Hans Urs von Balthasar, Louis Bouyer, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, Jean Daniélou, Étienne Gilson, Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, Jean Mouroux , Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and Edward Schillebeeckx. After the council this loose movement fractured and Joseph Ratzinger, Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Louis Bouyer began to work together while other members of the movement became quite eccentric.

A third term is the English ‘development’ which had in mind the organic progress or unfolding of doctrine over time. A classic expression of this notion is seen in the work of Blessed John Henry Newman. The works of Newman were still quite new at the time of second Vatican Council so he is not directly quoted but his ideas were influential. Newman is quoted four times in the Catechism (CCC 157, 1723, 1778, and 2144).

Georgetown professor, John W. O’Malley points out;

The three words overlap in their meanings, but in general they look, respectively, to the present (aggiornamento), the future (development), and the past (ressourcement). They all are concerned with change and, in the context of a reluctance to admit change, operate as soft synonyms for it and soft synonyms for reform. (What Happened at Vatican II, p 37)

The key ongoing question for the implementation of Second Vatican Council is how much change and what nature of change was intended by the council? It seems clear that the current Holy Father intends ‘reform’ to include both continuity and discontinuity as we all seek “to live and think with the Church” (Perfectae Caritatis 6). The danger lies with those who deliberately place themselves at odds with the thinking of the Church by presuming to be her judge and to be her critic.

Correctly Interpreting Second Vatican Council

In the year 2000 Pope John Paul II complained about misleading interpretations of Second Vatican Council which tried to highlight discontinuity with the past;

The Church has always known the rules for a correct hermeneutic of the contents of dogma. They are rules inscribed within the texture of faith and not outside it. To read the council supposing that it involves a rupture with the past-whereas in reality it situates itself in the line of the abiding faith-is decisively misleading. That which has been believed 'by all, always, and in every place' is the authentic newness that permits every epoch to feel itself enlightened by the word of God's revelation in Jesus Christ. (Pope John Paul II, 2000)[i]

Earlier in 1985 Pope John Paul II called and Extraordinary Synod of Bishops to discuss the interpretation of Second Council. Avery Cardinal Dulles has summarized the six principles adopted by this 1985 Synod as follows:

1. Each passage and document of the council must be interpreted in the context of all the others, so that the integral teaching of the council may be rightly grasped.

2. The four constitutions of the council (those on liturgy, church, revelation and church in the modern world) are the hermeneutical key to the other documents—namely, the council’s nine decrees and three declarations.

3. The pastoral import of the documents ought not to be separated from, or set in opposition to, their doctrinal content.

4. No opposition may be made between the spirit and the letter of Vatican II.

5. The council must be interpreted in continuity with the great tradition of the church, including earlier councils.

6. Vatican II should be accepted as illuminating the problems of our own day. (Dulles, America Magazine, 2/24/2003)

A trend which is hopefully now ‘out of fashion’, led some interpreters to compare list of attributes of the Church before the council to the same attributes of the Church after the council. Their point attempted to propose that the Church after the council is revolutionarily different, if not a completely different Church. Clearly the Church in Ireland in the 1200’s was quite different from that in Germany in the 1500’s or from that in France in the late 1800’s, but no one would say a different Church. The principles of the 1985 Synod would appear to rule out this interpretation of Second Vatican Council.

In 2008 Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an essay on the Vatican II Constitution Lumen Gentium .[ii] Cardinal Dulles comments on certain modern views of the Council which attempt to popularize a radical interpretation of the Council's impact on Ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church). The following chart is adapted from his essay, (p. 25).

Before the Council	After the Council
The Church is regarded as an institution founded by Christ with definite and immutable structures.	The Church as a pilgrim community constantly restructuring itself to suit the times.
The Church is regarded as necessary for salvation.	The Church is regarded as one of many places in which people could live a life of grace.
The Catholic Church saw herself as the sole legitimate Church.	The Church is regarded herself as one of many realizations of the Church of Christ, all imperfect.
The Church is saw herself as a divinely instituted monarchy in which all authority descended from the pope.	The Church is regarded as the People of God that governed itself through consensus.

Cardinal Dulles maintains; "All of these generalizations, I maintain, are false. They overlook the nuances both in the preconciliar period and in Vatican II." (p.25)

He notes, "Any aggiornamento that was accomplished was intrinsically connected with the principal of resourcement. “Every renewal of the Church," for the council, "essentially consists in an increase of fidelity to her own calling" (UR 6). (p. 26). As noted above, in 1985 Pope John Paul II convened an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishop because he was concerned about misinterpretations of Vatican II. The final report of the Synod taught that the teachings of the council should be interpreted "in continuity with the great tradition of the Church" and which includes previous councils and popes. (p. 26)

As Pope Benedict XVI has noted the reform intended by Second Vatican Council was not a radical break with the past.

---

[i] From an address in Italian John Paul II, "Udienza al convegno internazionale di studio," in Il Concilio Vaticano II: Recezione e attualita, ed. Rino Fisichella (Rome: San Paolo, 2000), 739, as quoted in Dulles, p. 26.

[ii] Dulles, Avery Cardinal "Nature, Mission, and Structure of the Church" in Matthew L. Lamb and Matthew Levering, eds. Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Blessed Pope John XXIII: A Man of Surprises

Pope John XXIII was a man of surprises. Less than three months after being elected Pope he announced on January 25, 1959, that he was going to call an ecumenical council of the Church. Even the cardinals of Vatican Curia were unprepared for this announcement. This new council was to be called not to respond to a crisis but to promote, “the enlightenment, edification and joy of the entire Christian people” including the “faithful of separated communities.” Somewhat later, Blessed John XXII was to name the council Vatican II to signal that it was not merely a continuation of Vatican Council I. His intentions in calling the council are reflected in his opening speech of to the council, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia (Latin for ‘Mother Church Rejoices’).

Rival interpretations of this opening speech of Pope John XXIII where immediately put forward at the council. There were those who wished to see the council as a means to further codify very specific scholastic interpretations of doctrine current in the Roman schools of the day. Truthfully there are segments of the address which appear to touch on this theme. The Pope talks of the duty "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion," and admonishes that "it is necessary first of all that the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers." Pope John XXII does not have an ‘either or schema’ in mind as he continues with the balancing statement, "But at the same time she must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and new forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate." He notes,

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

Without implying, in any way that the Church was departing from the doctrines once taught, there is a desire to find new ways of presenting these truths to the modern world.

A second interpretation of this speech by the council saw in it a call to have a ‘pastoral character’ to the new council. Pope John XXIII remarks, "The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity." A completely different style is envisioned which has an evangelistic focus. This question is especially important to the cause of healing divisions within the Church.

In our modern world which so quickly gives in to relativism we should be clear that ‘style’ was not a question of giving up truth or of making truth into a subjective feeling. This was an invitation to dialogue. But some might ask, is it possible to have dialogue without using the language of battle and controversy? Can we talk about the faith without attacking? Pope John XXIII notes, "That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her." I think the Pope John XXII was saying that the council should speak the truth, but should do so in love and in a language and style that could be understood by all people. As we can see from the documents of Vatican II, the council Fathers understood this vision and chose a new approach to presenting the faith to the world.

What is an Ecumenical Council?

The earliest councils of the Church were formal gatherings of the bishops to regulate doctrine or discipline. The Greek sunodos gave us our word ‘synod’ and the Latin equivalent is concilium or word ‘council’. Originally the terms were synonymous. The Council of Nicaea I, describes itself in Greek as a ‘holy synod.’ Gradually the Church began to distinguish between local or provincial councils and ‘general’ or ecumenical councils. The Catholic Church recognizes twenty-one ecumenical councils from Nicea I (325) to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The term ‘ecumenical’ was used by the Church to describe an authoritative and definitive council of the whole Church rather than a local or provincial council or synod. In our modern usage, a ‘council’ is an authoritative gathering of the bishops while a ‘synod’ is merely advisory. In the current code of cannon law it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical council and to determine its agenda. All bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right to a deliberative vote (CIC 338-339). At Vatican II the superior of some men’s religious orders were also given a vote.

Norman Tanner describes ecumenical councils as “the highest peaks of a vast mountain range” (Councils of the Church: A Short History) since the cannons, decrees, creeds and doctrinal statements issued by these councils often repeats those of local synods of bishops and earlier councils. Councils often focused on legislative issues, and the acts of councils issued cannons, decrees and anathemas against certain beliefs. The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines an ecumenical council as: “A gathering of all the bishops of the world, in the exercise of their collegial authority over the universal Church. An ecumenical council is usually called by the successor of St. Peter, the Pope, or at least confirmed or accepted by him” (CCC, p. 873)

Quoting from the Second Vatican Council (LG 22), the Catechism notes; "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council." But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor"(CCC 884).

The acts of a duly established and confirmed Ecumenical Council have supreme magisterial authority and are considered infallible when they intend to define dogma. Again quoting Second Vatican Council (LG 25), the Catechism notes;

“The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself (CCC 891).

The Second Vatican Council is arguably the largest ecumenical council to ever gather in the Church. The Vatican Secretariat of State sent out 2850 invitations (85 Cardinals, 8 Patriarchs, 533 archbishops, 2131 bishops, 26 abbots, 68 superiors-general of religious orders of men). All but a few hundred who were impeded by ill health or hostile communist governments attended. 2860 prelates attended in part over the four years. From start to finish 253 fathers died and 296 were added during the council. There were bishops from 116 counties represented. Fr. John O’Malley S.J. notes that “Pope John XXIII launched a process that would culminate in what was quite possibly the largest biggest meeting in the history of the world” (What Happened at Vatican II, p. 18). O’Malley notes the following geographic distributions of the prelates:

• 36% Europe

• 34% The Americas

• 20% Asia and Oceania

• 10% Africa

• The US with 7% of the world’s Catholic had 12% of the bishops

There were more bishops from more parts of the world than had ever gathered before in the history of the Church.

Following the leadership of Pope John XXIII, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council deliberately chose a different style than previous councils. They issued no cannons or anathemas. They deliberately chose the style of encouragement and persuasion (O’Malley calls the style ars laudandi, or panegyric) using theological argument, quotes from Sacred Scripture and the Fathers to guide the Church. The goal was to be evangelistic and to dialogue with the modern world.

The council issued sixteen ‘decrees’ but used varying terminology to grade the status of the council documents from higher to lower authority. The most solemn four were called ‘constitutions,’ next were nine ‘decrees’ and finally three were termed ‘declarations.’ The 1985 Extraordinary Synod of bishops affirmed again that “The four constitutions of the council (those on liturgy, church, revelation and church in the modern world) are the hermeneutical key to the other documents—namely, the council’s nine decrees and three declarations.” (as summarized by Cardinal Dulles America Magazine, 2/24/2003) The constitutions were the central foundational documents of the council, and among these documents two were given the added the adjective ‘dogmatic’ and one the adjective ‘pastoral.’ The adjective “pastoral” indicates the pastoral application to the world and not that this document less authoritative.

The Role of the Virtues in the Life of Christ

Even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is past its tenth birthday, many commentators have failed to notice that part three, “Life in Christ” is ordered around “virtues” and our “happiness” as human persons created male and female “in the image of God.” Although the Catechism interprets happiness in a Christian sense as divine beatitude, the idea of ordering the moral life according to our happiness begins with the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle’s Nichomachaean Ethics.

For Aristotle, the idea of happiness (eudaimonia) implies not simply a matter of feeling, but a fulfilled or worthwhile life. As a starting point Aristotle assumes that a worthwhile, or fulfilled life must be about something more important than simply pleasure, money or honors and power. (cf. CCC 1723) A person might use his or her freedom to over indulge in alcohol or food consumption and have a temporary feeling of a type of fulfillment, but very few would argue that a lifestyle oriented to such over-indulgence resulting in alcoholism or gluttony was true fulfillment. The life of eudaimonia implies that one is living according the proper or ultimate end of the human person.

Imagine for one moment that a small child begins typing randomly on a computer keyboard, is there even the slightest likelihood the result could be something like Catechism of the Catholic Church? The very existence of the Catechism implies an intrinsic purpose or design for such a work which far exceeds the random act of a child. On the other hand, a Catechism could be used for some ignoble purpose—a door stop, or perhaps fuel to light a fire, but this would be a distortion of its intended design, the excellent end for which the Catechism was created.

In the same way the very existence of human beings implies for Aristotle that human life is ordered to some end (telos) or purpose which is intrinsic to our nature. This intrinsic order which guides us toward fulfillment Aristotle called aretē or excellence. This can have two senses, first the stable dispositions of one’s moral character, and secondly one’s skill at living. In both cases the character or skill must be ordered towards excellence. The Greek term aretē was taken over by the Romans and given the Latin term virtus from which we derive the English word “virtue.” The Catechism defines virtues as:

A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions. (CCC 1803)

The happiness or fulfillment sought after is the most complete end and one which is sought after for its own sake. It involves the integral exercise of the intrinsic organizational end or purpose which, in the case of humans, is found in the rational soul. The natural desire for happiness found in the heart of man draws us to God’s own happiness or beatitude as an individual and personal vocation. For each and every person this becomes a unique vocation to holiness which allows us to become partakers of the divine nature.

The virtues in the Christian tradition are divided into the human virtues and the theological virtues. The Catechism describes human virtues as;

… firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. (CCC 1804)

The four cardinal human virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. James B. Stenson has suggested the following modern day common-sense alternatives to the traditional terms;

• Prudence is sound judgment and conscience.
• Justice is a sense of responsibility and fair play.
• Fortitude is courage, persistence, “guts.”
• Temperance is self-mastery, self-discipline, self-control.[1]

What philosophers and theologians call human virtues, those internal invisible qualities that represent the greatness of the human person, we might call character. Individual virtues represent tangible facets of an often complex matrix of qualities we call character.

The theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, on the other hand, are not learned but infused by God into the souls of the faithful. They are the foundation of Christian moral activity and inform, animate and give life to all the moral virtues. The existence of infused theological virtues in no way diminishes the responsibility for moral education.

The human virtues are rooted in the theological virtues and animated by them but the acquisition of human virtues still requires the effort of formation. The human virtues are “. . . acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace” (CCC 1810).

Education in the virtues involves three aspects. Example, guided practice and in the last place direct instruction of rules and theory. Learning the theory of music or the rules of soccer will not in itself produce a flutist or soccer forward, much less the rules of water safety a swimmer, or a textbook on the theory of flight a pilot! What is evident when we examine how moral development takes place is that it requires initiation into an embodied tradition with its own models and rules and structures. This embodied tradition takes the form of various structured communities or institutions with their own history, standards, and models. In the realm of moral development the first and most basic institution to influence all of us is the family, but a successive host of other institutions join in our initiation into the practice of moral reasoning. It is usually the role of various institutions in civil society and not the role of the state to educate us in this realm. One could perhaps even argue the state only has a temporary legitimate right to intervene when civil institutions fail in some aspect of moral formation relevant to the common good.[2] On the other hand, the state has an obvious duty to support civil institutions which provide communities supporting character development. This is a duty that many modern states have been reluctant to pursue. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has recently argued that we need to restore balance and validate the importance of families, communities and voluntary networks. Social goods are not merely an end—they are an end in themselves—intrinsically valuable. Society is the community of communities which belongs to the tradition of classical liberalism as opposed to libertarianism. “Classical liberalism saw the cultivation of virtue and the protection of the institutions in which it was sustained as on of the greatest responsibilities of the polis”[3]

Returning to the family and parenting as an embodied community of moral education, it can be seen that merely teaching children the rules and creating a structure that keeps them out of trouble, will not succeed in fully initiating them into the life of moral reasoning. Such common moral failings such as laziness, intemperate consumption, or difficulty controlling the sexual appetite are not a failure to know the rules of the tradition but a failure to live the virtues of diligence, order, discipline, self-control and modesty. Furthermore the restlessness of the human heart which naturally seeks the fulfilled life in pursuit of the good turns to counterfeit goods when the virtues are absent. These counterfeit goods seek to compensate the heart for its true longing, but they can never satisfy. The dream of the false good never equals the reality of true beatitude.

The virtues are the matrix through which are heart finds its rest in God. Animated by the theological virtues, made alive by the Holy Spirit the human virtues are the foundation and ongoing path of holiness. They are the bond that holds our families together, and the very substance of what makes life rich and worth living. They are also the foundation of our civil society and the pathway to peace and justice in the political and international realms.

---

Scott McKellar is Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute.

 

[1] James B. Stenson, Compass: A Handbook on Parent Leadership (New York: Scepter Publishers, 2003) p. 18. Stensen’s book is an excellent, common-sense guide for parents to learn how to instill character in their children and to form supportive parent communities concerned about their children’s moral development.

[2] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004) paragraphs 185-189 on subsidiarity.

[3] Jonathan Sacks, The Politics of Hope, 2nd ed. (London: Vintage, 2000) p. 232.

Paul’s Second and Third Missionary Journeys (Acts 16:6–19:20)

Scholars are generally agreed that Luke recounts three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul’s second and third missionary journeys (Acts 16-19) read like an ancient travel log. Paul, Silas and later Timothy, travel through the central part of what is now modern day Turkey. Initially they seek to visit the new Churches Paul founded in Syria, Cilicia and Galatia, travelling until they reach the coast at Troas. In the night Paul experiences a vision and he immediately sails across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia (Acts 16:9).

The narrative perspective becomes more vivid at this point as Luke begins to narrate as an eyewitness of this part of the journey. He notes, “we sought passage to Macedonia at once” (Acts 16:10). They soon arrive at Philippi which was a leading city of that region and a Roman colony (Acts 16:12).

On the Sabbath Paul and Silas begin ministering to the Jewish community. In this section Luke recounts two conversions, one of a prominent women and one of a man. It appears that Philippi did not have a quorum of men to found a Jewish synagogue. Paul visits “a place of prayer” by the river and preaches to a number of women. One of the women is a wealthy merchant named Lydia. Luke calls her a “worshiper of God” (16:14) and this may imply that she was a Gentile who was attached to Judaism but not yet a convert. Lydia “listened, and the Lord opened her heart” and she came to believe. As a result Lydia and household are baptized.

Later Paul and Silas cast out a demon from a slave girl who makes money for her owner through divination. The owner of the slave had Paul and Silas arrested, beaten and thrown in jail. Later Paul and Silas are miraculously freed from jail by God through an earthquake. The Philippian jailer, thinking he has failed his superiors and allowed the prisoners to escape, tries to fall on his sword. Paul stops him and the jailer and his entire household believe and are baptized. The authorities finally discover that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens and apologize for their illegal mistreatment but nevertheless ask them to immediately leave their town (16:40).

Paul and Silas then travelled to Thessalonica, the capital city of this province, where they preached for three weeks in a Jewish synagogue and persuaded many Jews and a great many devout Greeks and even a few of the leading women to become believers (17:4). Soon after this some of the others Jews became jealous and “set the city in an uproar.” Paul and Silas were forced to leave and to travel on to Borea. In this city they again began to preach in the synagogue and are very successful. Many Jews and Greeks believed. Luke tells us that the Jews in Beroea “were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Soon the Jews in Thessalonica heard about Paul’s ministry in Beroea and they came “stirring up and inciting the crowds.” Paul leaves by sea but “Silas and Timothy remained there.”

Paul arrives in Athens and preaches in the synagogues and market place each day. Eventually he meets some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who invite him to speak in the Areopagus. Paul attempts to connect the message of the gospel to an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God’ (17:23). Initially Paul intrigues them with his talk of the “God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands” (17:24) but when he mentioned the resurrection of the dead, some began to mock him but a few believed (17:32).

“After this he left Athens and went to Corinth.” (18:1). Here Paul met a Jew named Aquila and his wife Priscilla who were also tentmakers by trade, so Paul lived with them. Following his usual pattern Paul preached in the synagogues attempting to convince both Jews and Greeks. After the arrival of Timothy and Silas, the local Jews opposed and reviled him so he moved next door to the synagogue to “a house belonging to a man named Titus Justus.” Many Jews and Greeks were baptized including Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, “together with his entire household.” (18:8). Paul, having received a vision, “settled there for a year and a half and taught the word of God among them” (18:17). Again persecution broke out and Paul was brought before Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, but he dismissed the matter. After staying a while longer Paul sailed for Syria, together with Priscilla and Aquila. He stopped briefly to preach in the synagogue of Ephesus and then sailed to Caesarea and returned to Antioch (18:18-22).

After staying some time in Antioch Paul begin a new missionary journey travelling again in orderly sequence through Galatia and Phrygia and arriving in Ephesus. Here Paul and his companions met a Hellenistic Jew from Alexandria, named Apollos, who had apparently been instructed about Jesus but was not baptized. Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos preach and “they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.” At Ephesus, Apollos “vigorously refuted the Jews in public, establishing from the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.” (18:28)

While ministering at Ephesus, Paul met an unusual group of disciples who had only received John the Baptist’s ‘baptism of repentance’ rather than a Christian baptism. As a result they had not received the Holy Spirit. Paul preached to them and baptized them, laying his hands on them. They immediately received the gift of the Holy Spirit. At Ephesus Paul once again begins preaching in the synagogue until he faces rejection. Luke tells us that Paul preached daily for two years performing many miracles in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. As a result of these miracles and exorcisms many who practiced magic arts were won over to the faith. Luke reports, “And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all” (19:19).

The history of the early church reminds us that the Christian faith is life transforming and that as Christians begin to live the holiness of their common Baptismal calling society and culture are transformed by this live giving encounter with Christ.

Scott McKellar is Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute.

© Scott McKellar published in the Catholic Key newspaper May 11th, 2012.

Acts Of The Apostles: The Antioch Chronicles

After Stephen’s martyrdom a severe persecution broke out against the Church in Jerusalem. At this time King Herod had the Apostle James executed by the sword and the Apostle Peter thrown in prison. Peter was placed under heavy guard by four squadrons of Roman soldiers.  Each squadron would take a three hour watch during the night.  With the assistance of an angel, Peter made a spectacular jail break. The angel removed Peter’s chains and opened the iron gates allowing him to pass by all the guards without their notice.  The next morning “no small commotion” broke out among the guards and Herod discovered Peter’s escape and had the guards tried and executed for their apparent neglect of duties (Acts 12:19).  Later, Luke tells us that Herod was himself struck down by an angel and “eaten by worms” because he did not offer honor to God when a crowd ascribed divinity to him.  The Jewish historian Josephus recounts the same story, telling us that Herod developed severe stomach pains for five days before he passed away (Ant. 19.346-50).  Death by worms was often seen as the proper fate of tyrants.

We can see a series of reversals in Luke’s account.  King Herod began by seeking to harm the Church (Acts 12:1) but then ends up being eaten by worms (12:23).  We begin with Herod beheading the Apostle James (12:2) and imprisoning Peter (12:4) but end with Peter’s escape, Herod’s death and the growth and prosperity of the Church (12:24). The Jewish authorities were ‘stiff-necked’ and did not observe the law even though it was ‘transmitted by angels’ (Acts 7:53).  Now angels assist the leaders of the Church.  A young man named Saul guarded the cloaks of those stoning Stephen (7:58), but now he appears in the narrative as a prophet and teacher in the Church (13:1). This same man will soon be known as the Apostle Paul (13:9).

The whole narrative of Acts now shifts from a ministry centered on Jerusalem and the Jewish people, to the Church centered in Antioch and the Gentile mission.  Peter’s vision and ministry to Cornelius (Acts 10), the mission to certain Gentiles in Antioch (11:20) had already opened the door to this ministry but now the full missionary effort of the Church breaks forth under the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Luke tells us that there were certain prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch. As they were worshiping and fasting, the Holy Spirit said to them, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2).  In the original Greek, the command, “set apart for me” is very emphatic and the verb “to which I have called them” emphasizes past completed action.  All Christians are called to bear witness through their daily lives, but the Holy Spirit was giving Barnabas and Saul a more specific missionary calling.  It is interesting to note the two parts of this calling.  We can see the implied interior prompting of the Spirit in the hearts of Barnabas and Saul, but also the validation of this calling by the Church.  This was not the first moment of their calling, for the Holy Spirit had already called them. This was an inspired recognition of their calling by the Church. Luke tells us that the leaders “laid hands on them and sent them off” (13:3).

In the next section, Luke recounts Paul’s first missionary journey to Cyprus and Galatia, with Barnabas (Acts 13:4-14:23). They took along Barnabas’ cousin John Mark as well. Paul’s first missionary journey began by travelling to the port city of Selucia sixteen miles from Antioch and then sixty miles by sea to the island of Cyprus.

When we think of Paul’s missionary journeys we should not think of him bouncing from place to place leaving newly catechized Christians behind in each city.  He seems to have moved slowly, staying for extended periods if possible, and not moving on until he had left a firm foundation.  Paul usually only moved on when circumstances forced him to do so.  He also seems to have targeted major cities, especially the capitols of Roman colonies. As general strategy he went first to the “the synagogues of the Jews” (Acts 13:5) and then, if rejected, to the Gentiles.

Salamis was the old capitol of the Island of Cyprus in the Greek period but the Romans had moved the capitol to Paphos.  In this city Barnabas and Paul are resisted by a false prophet and magician named Bar-Jesus who tried to prevent them from preaching to the Proconsul Sergius Paulus.  Paul rebukes the magician with a Spirit-inspired curse, calling him Bar-Satan and telling him “you will be blind” for a time.  Like Saul at his conversion the magician is blind for a time and needs to be “led by the hand.”  Seeing this, the Proconsul is ‘astonished’ and is led to believe (Acts 13:12).

When they prepared to set sail for Perga, their assistant John Mark , “left them and returned to Jerusalem” (13: 13).  The expression “left them” could be translated “deserted them” (cf. Acts 15:38).  While Paul was opposed to working with John Mark after this incident, we know that their relationship was later restored (Philemon 24; Colossians 4:10; and 2 Timothy 4:11).  This same Mark is traditionally thought to be the author of the Gospel of Mark.

Upon their arrival in Perga, Paul and Barnabas continue on an arduous journey over the Tarsus Mountains to Psidian Antioch. As was their pattern they begin preaching in the synagogue and “many Jews and devout converts to Judaism” followed them (13:43).

The next Sabbath “almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God” (13:44). This incited jealousy from some of the Jews and a persecution broke out which “drove them out of their district.” Paul and Barnabas “shook off the dust from their feet against them, and went to Iconium” (13:52).

Iconium is the easternmost city in Phrygia, and some ninety miles south east of Antioch.

Paul and Barnabas begin their ministry in Psidian Antioch by preaching in the synagogue with great success and then as usual they are persecuted.  Nonetheless “they remained for a long time, speaking boldly” (14:3). Eventually they learned of a plot to stone them so they fled to Lystra and Derbe (14:6).

At Lystria Paul healed a man lame from birth and the locals suppose that he and Barnabas were the Gods Zeus and Hermes (14:12). Paul and Barnabas “scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them” (14:18). Later some Jews from Psidian Antioch and Iconium arrived and again stir up the crowd. Paul was stoned and left for dead (14:19). When he recovered, Paul and Barnabas left for Derbe. The cities of Iconium and Lystra were on the paved main Roman road but to reach Derbe one had to travel an unpaved road about 60 miles. 

At Derbe they conduct a successful mission making many disciples and then they returned briefly to Antioch and Iconium appointing elders for them in every church.  Passing through Pamphylia, they now preached in Perga, before traveling to Attalia; and finally they sailed to back to Antioch in Syria (14:24-28) and gave a full report of their success.

St. Paul’s missionary journeys became the model for the Church’s missionary efforts around the world.

Scott McKellar is Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute.

© Scott McKellar published in the Catholic Key newspaper April 20, 2012.

Acts Of The Apostles: Peter’s Early Ministry

As a general theme, the first half of Acts is the story of Peter’s ministry. Luke reminds his reader that the Gospel has now spread throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria (Acts 9:31) and that for a time the Church was experiencing peace. Peter is featured in two miracle stories which parallel the miracles of Jesus found in Luke (Luke 5:17-26 and Luke 7:11-16). Peter is the true disciple who imitates and authentically carries on the ministry of Jesus. These miracles also echo the lives of Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament (1 Kings 17:17-24 and 2 Kings 4:32-37) which suggest that Peter is acting as a prophet. Peter is filled with the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:4) and again in Acts 4:8 and this infilling resulted in many “signs and wonders” (Acts 5:12) which serve to evangelize more and more people. These miracles also authenticate Peter’s leadership.

Commentators have noted that Luke enjoys sharing narratives in pairs. There are two miracle stories in this section of Acts. The first story is the healing of a paralyzed man named Aeneas (Acts 9:32-35) who was paralyzed for 8 years. The fact that Luke shares the personal name of each individual is unusual. In this case the man is named after the Trojan hero in Virgil’s epic the Aeneid. One can presume that he is either a Gentile or a Hellenistic Jew. Luke gives only the simplest account of the healing. The result is that all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon “turned to the Lord.”

Much more attention in the narrative is given to the account of the healing of the woman named Tabitha. The details about her “good deeds and almsgiving,” about her body being washed and prepared for burial and laid out in the “upper room,” and finally the presence of the ‘widows’ have suggested to commentators that Tabitha was a wealthy woman in whose house a Church met and that she had a ministry among the widows. Tabitha’s importance to the community in Joppa caused them to send two men to Peter requesting that he come immediately to see them.

After greeting the community, Peter kneels down and prays by Tabitha’s body and she comes back to life. In the next chapter Peter affirms that “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34). The pairing of these two narratives by Luke suggests that God heals both men and women and highlights the culturally unexpected elevation of the role of women in the early Church. This new healing by Peter is even greater than the last and people all over Joppa came to “believe in the Lord” (Acts 9:42).

The next chapter introduces a Gentile centurion named Cornelius. He is a ‘God fearer’ who has been generous to the Jewish people and ‘prays to God constantly.’ An angel appears to Cornelius and encourages him to summon Peter and even gives Cornelius supernatural instructions on how to locate Peter. At the same time Peter has a vision which encourages him to disregard certain ceremonial restrictions regarding common table fellowship with the Gentiles. The Spirit tells Peter “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane” (10:15). Cornelius sends messengers to summon Peter to his house, which normally would be unlawful for a Jew. Peter accompanies the messengers because he has learned that he “should not call any person profane or unclean” (10:28).

At Cornelius’ house Peter gives a sermon which highlights the universal scope of the Gospel for all peoples. “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34). Every nation is called to embrace the good news about “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power [and how Jesus] went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38) and that “everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43). While Peter is saying these things the Holy Spirit “fell upon all who were listening to the word” and they began to speak in tongues and glorify God just as the apostles had at Pentecost. This evidence prompts Peter to have the entire household of Cornelius baptized. While the experience of Cornelius’ household is a special sign that God wants to include the Gentiles in the Church, this should not lead us to dismiss the experience as not applying to us today. Tangible experiences of the Spirit seem to be the norm in the New Testament.

In modern times commentators have tended to intellectualize this as a mental assent to the Spirit’s presence instead of a perceptible experience of a ‘manifestation the Spirit’ (1 Corinthians 12:7). This experience does not, of course, need to be tongues as we see here. In Acts 10:46 it included Spirit led praise and elsewhere many other gifts (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4:11-12). Paul appeals directly to the experience of the Spirit in his argument in Galatians 3:1-5. The Galatians “began in the Spirit” at their conversion (Galatians 3:3) but later the Spirit “works mighty deeds” among them (Galatians 3:5).

When Peter returns to the other apostles and believers in Judea they initially confront him for his apparent violation of the Jewish law (Acts 11:2). Peter recounts the whole story of his vision and experience with Cornelius. He relates how the Holy Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius as it had upon Peter and the other apostles at Pentecost. Peter says, “If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” (Acts 11:17). Peter persuades the others that God is behind this new work. As a result some of the disciples began to speak to the Greeks in Antioch and a great number turn to the Lord. The Jerusalem Church sends Barnabas to encourage them and he travels to Tarsus to invite Saul to join them. The disciples are first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Recently Pope Benedict XVI has called for a renewed emphasis on evangelization. We can see from the life of the early Church that this is the common apostolate of all Christians under the leadership of Peter. Holy Mary, Queen of Apostles, pray for us.

Scott McKellar is the Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute for the Diocese of Kansas City – St. Joseph.

© Scott McKellar published in the Catholic Key newspaper April 7th , 2012.