
Note: The following homily was preached on the feast of St. Timothy (EF), on January 24, 2025, at the Church of the Holy Innocents, New York City.
Let me begin this evening by unraveling a bit of our often-played game of “musical calendars.” In the liturgical calendar of the 1962 Missal, today is the feast of St. Timothy, the day before the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul; in the reformed calendar,, January 26 is the memorial of Saints Timothy and Titus, the day after the feast of Paul’s conversion. Oddly, the calendar bequeathed by the Council of Trent had no feast for Titus, who had to wait until the pontificate of Pope Pius IX in 1854 to be remembered at the altar.
Having Timothy and Titus share a common celebration–and following that of Paul’s conversion–makes perfect sense as they were St. Paul’s dear sons in the priesthood and episcopate, to whom he directed the so-called Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, letters dealing precisely with Church order and Christian living.
In those two sons of Paul, we see lived out the Church’s doctrine of apostolic succession. Of course, the primatial example of that is found in the very first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Prince of the Apostles calls for a replacement for the Traitor. And so, we read:
And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (1:23-26)
And so, I thought it might be worthwhile to use this occasion to review the doctrine of apostolic succession. Listen to a few paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this regard:
The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:
– she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles,” The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
– with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, The “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
– she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”: (CCC, 857)
At which point, the Catechism quotes Preface I for the Apostles in the current edition of the Missale Romanum:
For you, eternal Shepherd, do not desert your flock, but through the blessed Apostles watch over it and protect it always, so that it may be governed by those you have appointed shepherds to lead it in the name of your Son.
Then the text picks up here:
Jesus is the Father’s Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he “called to him those whom he desired; …. and he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach.”From then on, they would also be his “emissaries” (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own mission: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” The apostles’ ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: “he who receives you receives me.”
Jesus unites them to the mission he received from the Father. As “the Son can do nothing of his own accord,” but receives everything from the Father who sent him, so those whom Jesus sends can do nothing apart from him, from whom they received both the mandate for their mission and the power to carry it out. Christ’s apostles knew that they were called by God as “ministers of a new covenant,” “servants of God,” “ambassadors for Christ,” “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore, . . . the apostles took care to appoint successors.”
“In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.”
“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” (CCC 858-862)
The Church holds that apostolic succession is so essential that no Christian body can be properly called a “Church” without it. Which is why the documents of Vatican II (and every official document since) refrain from calling a “Church” any community that lacks the charism of succession, referring to them merely as “ecclesial communities.” In reality, that effectively means that only the Eastern Orthodox can be regarded as real Churches.
However, we need to ask in what does apostolic succession consist? It is transmitted, firstly, by the liturgical act of the laying on of hands by one already possessing the ministry of bishop and thus passing it on to a “successor.” The “content” of succession, we could say, includes a life of worship stemming from the sacraments, grounded in apostolic teaching and way of life.
So, yes, what we call “tactile” succession, that is, the laying on of hands from generation to generation is critical, equally so is succession in faith and morals. The Anglican Communion has always boasted of apostolic succession. However, decades before Pope Leo XIII, in his 1896 encyclical Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican Orders “absolutely null and utterly void,” Cardinal Newman had come to the same conclusion. You see, aside from Edward VI’s tinkering with the rite of ordination, Anglicans had, step by step, moved away from the full Deposit of Faith.
Many of you, I am sure, have heard of the great literary figure and convert to the Catholic Faith, Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, perhaps most famous for his 1907 dystopian science fiction novel, Lord of the World. Interestingly, Robert was the son of the would-be Archbishop of Canterbury. As the young man—a by-then Anglican cleric—was beginning to think seriously about the claims of Anglicanism, he asked his father one day how he saw himself in the line of apostolic succession. Riffing on the Greek origin of the word “apostle” (as you saw the Catechism do), the elder gentleman declared, “I was sent by Archbishop Archibald Campbell Tait, who was sent by Archbishop So-and-So, who was sent by. . . all the way back to Archbishop Matthew Parker.”
At which point, the junior cleric and son queried, “And who sent Matthew Parker?” I imagine an awkward silence ensued because the answer to that cheeky question would have had to been “Henry VIII.” Not very apostolic.
It is one of the sad ironies of our time that, despite all our efforts and prayers, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion have never been farther apart. In Newman’s time, there was not a single moral precept or teaching of the Catholic Church that was not held by Anglicans. Today, we inhabit two different moral universes.
At any rate, as we find ourselves headed toward the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, we must re-double our pleadings for that intention for, as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us in 2011, “Prayer is at the center of the journey to unity. We do not ‘construct’ unity,” the Pope explained. “God ‘constructs’ it, it comes from Him.”
That intuition motivated an Episcopal clergyman a century earlier to establish this Octave of prayer; that initiative caught on like wildfire, even among Catholic prelates.
That man was Lewis Thomas Wattson, who became “Father Paul” in founding the first religious community of men and women within Anglicanism, in consort with Mother Lurana, as the Society of the Atonement, right here in the Archdiocese of New York at Garrison, where they dubbed their new home “Graymoor,” to which I had the joy of making my first pilgrimage as an altar boy of nine. Father Paul presented himself to Archbishop John Farley for Catholic ordination. The Archbishop sent him to Dunwoodie, presumably for two years of study, however, within seven short months Farley conferred on him Catholic priesthood. Cardinal Dolan formally launched Father Paul’s cause for canonization in 2014.
Every pope of the modern era has had a special burden on his heart for the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox, which is likely one reason Pius IX created the feast of St. Titus, who founded the Church on the Island of Crete. That realization caused Dom Guéranger to end his reflection for that feast with this lovely prayer, which we can make our own:
Ask of Jesus, that He send us Pastors like unto thee. Pray for that Island, which thou didst convert to the true faith, but which is now buried in the darkness of infidelity and schism. Pray, too, for the Greek Church, that it may regain its ancient glory by union with the See of Peter. Hear, O Titus! thy prayers of the Pontiff, who has made thy name to be venerated in the Liturgy throughout the world, in order that He might draw down peace and mercy upon the world, by thy powerful intercession.
St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles
St. Timothy
St. Titus
Venerable Paul Wattson– pray to our Heavenly Father, in union with the Church’s Lord, “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Whatever became of Father Rutler?
Seems like he’s still wielding a pen…
His most recent entry at Imaginative Conservative is dated February 2022, and was interviewed by Dappled Things in May 2024.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/author/rev-george-w-rutler
https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/11378/fr-rutlers-peregrinating-essays
https://crisismagazine.com/author/rutler
https://ignatius.com/authors/fr-george-rutler/
Thanks, Peter.
I’m very skeptical about this article. The author writes:
“The Church holds that apostolic succession is so essential that no Christian body can be properly called a “Church” without it. Which is why the documents of Vatican II (and every official document since) refrain from calling a “Church” any community that lacks the charism of succession, referring to them merely as “ecclesial communities.”
But if you are familiar with the Council speeches of Vatican II, you see the terms “ecclesial communities” and “Church” used interchangeably. For example, Archbishop George Flahiff writes: “Schisms among Christians are brought about as a consequence of sin, sin in which the whole Christian people shares. Although it is not for us to put the past on trial, as Pope John XXIII said, all Christian communities or Churches are bound to acknowledge their faults…” Note “all Christian communities or Churches”. He continues later on: “…in a similar way through the division of the Churches he wants to give many…I am fully convinced that the ecumenical movement is the work of the Holy Spirit through which out of schisms, or better, out of the effort to overcome them, all the Churches profit immensely, are challenged to renewal,…”
From the earliest times until the present time, the Church has always been the “fellowship of those who believe in Christ”, that is, the “fellowship of those who have committed themselves to the person and cause of Christ and attest that cause as hope for all men and women”. Consider Mark, chapter 9: “John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us”. Perhaps one could say that John was concerned about the lack of the “charism of succession”. Jesus did not appear to be so concerned.
This distinction between church and ecclesial communities seems like a theological construct to me.
In the Germanic languages, the name “church” (Kirche) is derived from the Greek kyriake, which means “belonging to the Kyrios, the Lord,” and means the house or the community of the Lord. In the Romance languages, ecclesia, iglesia, chiesa, église, are derived from the Greek word ekklesia, which is also used in the New Testament, or the Hebrew word qahal, and means “assembly” (of God).
I’m skeptical not only about articles written by this author, but also his ecumenical prowess.
From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (July 29, 2007), under Benedict XVI:
Full document on Vatican site.
It’s hard to argue with this. It is very good, and when I read the whole document on the Vatican website, it reads very differently than Stravinskas article or “homily”. Personally, I’m not sure how ecumenically prudent that distinction is, but that’s another question, to be argued out on another forum with ecumenically minded theologians. I’m reminded that there were all sorts of “theological opinions” (like this one) that were put forth at Vatican II by Cardinals that were rejected by the majority bishops, such as the order of the chapters in Lumen Gentium. The significance of that was tremendous. And so I wonder about how much authority we can give this text, in light of the hierarchy of truths.
In any case, I do wonder about Stravinskas’s expression “…merely as ‘ecclesial communities’. We know from Scripture that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Mt 18, 20). That’s all that seems to matter for those gathered. Yes, they don’t have the Eucharist and the benefit of all the gifts that come with a magisterium and the seven sacraments, but that doesn’t seem to bother them. And when it comes right down to it, so many of these merely “ecclesial communities” are doing so much more for people than the Catholic parishes that are instances of the so-called “authentic Church”. I know a Catholic parish nearby that has tremendous potential, lay people ready and willing to do so much, to start a bible study, support groups of various sorts, ministries of outreach, visiting schools, etc., but the pastor chooses to do everything by himself, which isn’t much, because he’s old and tired, and in his mind, it is “his Church”, not theirs. He’s precisely the kind of priest that Francis is telling us not to be, and he has no clue. All he seems to care about is sanctuary decor. So, a large number of people have left the parish and gone to the Pentecostal Church in the next town–or I should say mere “ecclesial community”–, others left for the local Anglican Church (or mere ecclesial community), and they are getting so much out of these communities. Granted they don’t have the Eucharist and Confession etc, but it doesn’t seem to bother them. They have community, fellowship, they have Christ in their midst, they have weekly bible study during the week, weekly prayer group meetings, soup kitchens for the town’s homeless, etc., etc. The place is bustling with activity during the week, unlike the Catholic parish I was referring to. Theological distinctions really don’t seem to matter to these people. I ask myself what would I rather have? A homily like Peter Stravinskas gave, which only hardens people in their sectarianism, in an us and them mentality? Or an inspiring homily by the Pentecostal minister on the face of Christ in the poor, the sick, the distressed? Stravinskas might win the argument, but he certainly does not win the people, except those tribal Catholics who think like him.
And since we are the habit of referring to these Vatican documents on the Vatican website as sources of authority, allow me to refer to these. First, Amoris Laetitia:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin –which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.”
And of course, footnote 351 says: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”
And in light of your reference to CCC 858-862: “…the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ,…”, then let’s be consistent and hear the following from the USCCB:
“We recognize the need for just immigration enforcement and affirm the government’s obligation to carry it out in a targeted, proportional, and humane way. However, non-emergency immigration enforcement in schools, places of worship, social service agencies, healthcare facilities, or other sensitive settings where people receive essential services would be contrary to the common good. With the mere rescission of the protected areas guidance, we are already witnessing reticence among immigrants to engage in daily life, including sending children to school and attending religious services. All people have a right to fulfill their duty to God without fear. Turning places of care, healing, and solace into places of fear and uncertainty for those in need, while endangering the trust between pastors, providers, educators and the people they serve, will not make our communities safer.”
It’s actually quite simple: if there is no apostolic succession, there is no Eucharist, etc. And there is no church in the strict sense of that widely-used term without a priesthood and Eucharist.
Yes, of course there is plenty of faith and good things to be found in groups that do not have apostolic succession and the Eucharist. I grew up in a Fundamentalist Bible Chapel and I attended an Evangelical Bible college. There was a lot of faith and many, many good things in both. But, we did not have the Eucharist.
“Yes, they don’t have the Eucharist and the benefit of all the gifts that come with a magisterium and the seven sacraments, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.”
Having spent a quarter century in such groups, I can partially agree. Some folks are ignorant (wildly ignorant, to be frank) about where they got the Bible, the truth about the Catholic Church, etc. But some have a sense that things are incomplete and either lash out at the Catholic Church, or are curious. Christ calls us to the fullness of truth; it’s wrong to simply think, “Well, hey, they are doing good and doing good stuff, so what’s the problem?”
My belief—based on experience, theological study, historical knowledge, and plenty of anecdotal material—is that non-Catholic Christians are either moving toward or away from the Catholic Church. There is no static position. The first should encouraged; we must do all we can to help them. The second is to be lamented, and we must do all we can to clear away impediments and give witness to the fullness of truth.
Yes, you are right, they do NOT know where the bible came from, nor the truth about the Catholic Church, etc., but once again, in their minds, who cares when they have great fellowship, prayer, and a very lively faith in the Person of Christ who is working miracles in their lives, bringing great healing, etc? The only cases I see in which they “sense” that something is incomplete is in the Catholic parishes, where very little is happening. So you have your theological answers on one level, but on another level, where the “rubber hits the road”, you get something completely different. Not abstract answers to catechetical questions, but a living community.
You are right, there is no static position, but you forgot to mention how the Catholic Church is moving as well. It’s not just the non-Catholic “ecclesial communities” that are moving and should move, while the Catholic Church can enjoy the luxury of remaining right where she is, as if there is no need to change. The Church has to move and is moving as well, at least under Pope Francis. The problem is that many Catholic journals speak so disparagingly about Francis and his efforts, undermining them, and are content to remain exactly where they are, without any need to move towards ecumenical unity.
And you are right, Christ calls us to the fullness of truth, but that call is also directed at the Catholic clergy. But more to the point, truth isn’t merely “answers to questions”. Truth is living and active; it is a Person, namely Christ, and the Catholic parish I describe does not in any way exhibit that fullness. Rather, the pastor is a “stifler” (stifles the Holy Spirit with the spirit of clericalism). I am aware that not all Catholic parishes are like that–some are tremendous and are doing great work and are truly alive. But so many are barely alive, all because of a spirit of clericalism that refuses to die.
We put way too much emphasis on Q & A, as if “Truth” is nothing but the right answers to academic questions (ie., Catholic Answers). We often confuse Evangelization with Apologetics. Truth is a Person, and that Person must increase while you and I decrease. The problem is so many of us clergy refuse to decrease and allow the gifts and talents of non-clergy to exercise the gifts the Lord has given them, because “it’s my show”.
“The only cases I see in which they “sense” that something is incomplete is in the Catholic parishes, where very little is happening.”
A broad-brushed and very unfair statement. I recall going to Mass for the first time at a very normal, regular parish and being blown away from the liturgy, the readings, the reverence, the reality of Christ present in the Eucharist. Not sure why you are so down on Catholic parishes.
” The Church has to move and is moving as well, at least under Pope Francis.”
Not sure what they means. The Church can never move away from the deposit of faith, given to her by Christ, nor can she move away from the reality of apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc.
“We put way too much emphasis on Q & A, as if “Truth” is nothing but the right answers to academic questions …”
Do “we”? I don’t.
My sense is that you have a beef with someone or something, and you bring to these discussions. Fair enough. But I think it clouds your judgments about a lot of things. Just my .02.
Your consistent refusal to call a priest “Father” suggests that perhaps you belong in one of those “ecclesial communities”!
It’s simple: you’re not my father, and Jesus told us not to call anyone father, for you have one Father in heaven.
The very fact that this bothers you speaks volumes.
I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you are Catholic. What are you?
Mr. Thomas James,
You write “Yes, they don’t have the Eucharist and the benefit of all the gifts that come with a magisterium and the seven sacraments, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.” Later you write, to wit: “Granted they don’t have the Eucharist and Confession etc, but it doesn’t seem to bother them. They have community, fellowship, they have Christ in their midst, they have weekly bible study during the week, weekly prayer group meetings, soup kitchens for the town’s homeless, etc., etc. ”
And there reveals your priorities. The Blessed Sacrament should be the first thing with which people concern themselves. You seem to downplay the Blessed Sacrament in favor of community and fellowship. I have no doubt that what you say is true, that the Spirit is moving in such activities you cite but fellowship is incidental, very important, but a natural and incidental result of worshipping God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
As regards the casual abandoning of the sacraments not seeming to bother those faithful you describe, I can only reply, what a poverty. Begs the question, just how do they square with The Bread of Life Discourse John 6:25-71?
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/07/14/catholic-priest-do-not-call-me-father-242905
“The only cases I see in which they ‘sense’ that something is incomplete is in the Catholic parishes, where very little is happening” (quoting Thomas James as underlined in Carl Olson’s response).
Optics may give that impression, perhaps a mild case of lying eyes. I say that Thomas because to see the treasure of faith within the long history of Catholicism to our present day, our search for truth must give account for the long list of saints and martyrs whose lives and blood witness have impacted human history for the better.
We may seem unfair to reach back to Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and their blood commitment to authoritative Apostolic structure, the inspired presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, Saint Thomas More, Chancellor of England, Saint Therese of Lisieux, Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the martyr Church of Nigeria. Minds and hearts of great and small have been affected for good or evil like a sword that cleaves. Whether we may disagree with what is said, when the Roman Pontiff speaks the world listens.
Thomas James, I understand what you are saying and in large measure agree with you. I am the product of the rich Protestant evangelical background which was in turn the product of a decadent Church centuries ago. It was perhaps the lack of evangelical witness on the part of the campus Newman Club that allowed the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship on our campus to flourish and reach out to many lost students like me. When the Church fails, God raises up others outside the Church to fill in the gap. They will never replace the Church, but are used to supplement the weakness of the Church and to nudge it back to the straight and narrow. Jesus taught us not to deprecate those who were doing the right thing outside of the group. We must be thankful for our “ separated, brethren “ and seek to welcome them back into the fold.
James, You write, “When the Church fails, God raises up others outside the Church to fill in the gap.”
The Church, founded by Christ inherently containsa His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. The Church cannot and will not fail in its oneness and its holiness.
The distinction we need is that sinful MEN fail Christ and fail to realize that He Himself abides in His Church.
Leaving the one and holy catholic and apostolic Church for a church that lacks those marks of the Catholic Church is akin to leaving Christ Himself.
Is that Catholic parish you mentioned your own parish Mr. James or are you commenting as one of our separated Christian brethren?
I agree that fellowship is very important, but not more so than the Sacraments & the Eucharist. I don’t see why we can’t have all at the same time but we have to prioritize.
Pope bendict( the pope b4 francis) said and wrote the same things you dislike from the author. So I say you know nothing but caos
To Thomas James – Jesus also said to call no one teacher. Do you adhere to that?
Proof texting individual statements usually does not work.
Speeches do not rank as official VCII documents; although a certain archbishop may have had his speech at VCII published, magisterial teaching is in the documents.
Also, the idea of apostolic succession is traced back to scripture where Jesus built his church on Peter (Cephas). The early Church fathers continued to preach the doctrine summarily noted as “Where Peter Is, there is the Church.” For more, see https://1library.net/article/the-early-church-fathers-on-apostolic-succession.zwm59e1q.
Also note the Nicene Creed, developed and adopted at the Council of Nicea, noting the Church in which we profess our faith: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Good article. Anglican and Lutherans have none of the 4 pillars of Catholicism, since they can only trace their
historical successors back to Henry VIII and Martin Luther, respectively.
The True Church (Catholic) has all 4 points of doctrine: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Eastern Orthodox, along with the SSPX, while validly retaining all 7 Sacraments, are lacking the Oneness, which is why faithful Catholics should avoid going to those parishes (unless it’s a dire emergency and you need anointing, last rites etc) until they can reenter full union with Rome.
Carl Olson writes: “My sense is that you have a beef with someone or something, and you bring to these discussions. Fair enough. But I think it clouds your judgments about a lot of things. Just my .02.”
Really? Sort of like the beef that CWR and its writers have a beef with Pope Francis? Do you think that might cloud your judgement?
Nope. Not similar at all. You aren’t paying attention.
Well that was an enjoyable discussion, but I think you are a stubborn man–perhaps I am too.
Interestingly enough, my sense when reading your replies was that “you are not listening”. You are an academic, you like intellectual things, ideas, history, theology, politics, etc. Most people are not like that. They want Christian fellowship; they want to know Christ not just in the head, but in the heart. Reading a good book by Chesterton or whoever is just not enough for them, and not everyone is as moved as you are by liturgical etiquette, especially when they know the priest doesn’t give two hoots about people, unless he’s discovered they have money.
Christ is community, and there are just way too many Catholic parishes that are not doing enough or allowing enough to be done by lay people, but are limiting themselves to “service station ministry”–drive in, fill up your car, and get the hell out and leave us alone, until next Sunday. That’s what the Church has certainly discovered through the synodal process. Listening.
Good discussion.
Thomas James you did most of the talking.
I found a lot of it superfluous and deflecting. Plus adding on – on and on. Some of your argument “goes back to basics as if there was an error of understanding at the level of the basics with the error informing the other side” and there is no such misunderstanding; meanwhile your step back to basics “allows” you to trundle along your course and skip the challenges.
Citing Amoris is helpful? One big problem area in Amoris is, it is biased to dissolving sacramental situations in place of salvage and redemption while it makes to allow non-sacramental unions to sacramental-ist protection.
Apparently when something starts out sacramental and gets into trouble it teeters on nullity without remedy; but when it starts out non-sacramental there is no abuse and there is remedy that permits what is not permissible.
St. Paul allowed that when one spouse converts to Christianity but the other won’t convert, it would null since the first can not have known if he (or she) could have led the other to Christ. Amoris is at odds with this on both levels.
” You are an academic, you like intellectual things, ideas, history, theology, politics, etc. Most people are not like that.”
I’m not an academic. I’ve never held any academic post. Nor do I have a PhD, which is the norm for most things academic.
And CWR, of course, is not an academic journal, nor is it aimed at an academic audience. In fact, it is meant for ordinary, non-specialist readers.
I like truth. I love Truth. I think that thinking is a good thing; I know that thinking with the Church is a very good thing.
“Reading a good book by Chesterton or whoever is just not enough for them, and not everyone is as moved as you are by liturgical etiquette, especially when they know the priest doesn’t give two hoots about people, unless he’s discovered they have money.”
Like I said, you are angry at someone or something. Best figure out what it is.
Like you Mr. Olson I love truth. About a month ago I read an article, maybe in CWR, a quote from Chesterton. He was asked why he was Catholic. His three word answer was “it is true.” That is the main reason that I am Catholic. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.
One should perhaps admire this highly referenced academic discussion about something that pretty much has nothing relevant or useful to say about either today’s church or world, or even yesterday’s church or world for that matter. How about a little discussion instead of a couple of recent statements from Vice President Vance – a devout and more recent convert to Catholicism – who had this to say about the current immigrant round-up by ICE: “I think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has, frankly, not been a good partner in common sense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for, and I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they’ll do better”. Or maybe this one: “I think that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants. Are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?” Or, perhaps we can all keep our collective heads in the sand and hold up pretty things to the light and admire their conceptual theoretical framework while the world burns down.
I guess we’ll file your comment under: “I don’t like this article because it ain’t the article I wanted to read”?
Unfortunately, our bishops have been complicit (seemingly unwittingly) in their support of “undocumented workers” AKA illegal aliens. Let me give one example how their misguided political opinions have had catastophic results, especially with regard to the integrity of families.
As a mental health professional, I’ve counseled more than a few Hispanic men who came to the USA with an honest desire to improve their economic lot. But they came here illegally. These were men typically between the ages of 25-35. Their journey through Central America and Mexico was often a costly and treacherous undertaking. Not a few of these men came here by themselves leaving a wife and children behind because of the costs and risks involved in making the journey.
Now, once these men arrived here and got work (usually paid less than what their work would have garnered them if they had come here legally), they’d get lonely for the companionship of a woman. These relationships would end up as sexual liaisons and when men and women have sex, it oftentimes winds up with babies. Some of these pregnancies ended up in abortions and, for others, a live birth because babies are bonding and women know they obligate a man to the relationship. So now you have a man with a wife and children back home to whom he would formerly send some of his pay on a regular basis who are now destitute and forgotten because the husband and father has a new family here in the USA. This was a pattern that became very familiar to me since I worked in an area of South Carolina where there were lots of illegal men who worked as migrant farm workers.
So our bishops and our Catholic agencies such as CLINIC, CCHD and Catholic Charities have been supporting a system of illegal immigrants where families are destroyed, poverty has increased, unwanted babies aborted, and immigrants who can never really settle into our country. Our Catholic Church has been rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal contracts to participate in a very broken system that has devastated lives. And now our bishops purport to lecture the rest of us about how heroic they’ve been.
I have mentioned only one aspect of this ill-conceived idea of turning a blind eye to individuals entering our country illegally. How about the extortion of poor people by coyotes transporting them? How about the flood of Fentanyl and other illegal drugs into our country killing our young? How about the crimes of theft and murder by these illegals who brought with them their lifestyles? How about the sexual enslavement of women coming here illegally? How about all those thousands of missing and unaccounted for children? No, the Catholic Church, our bishops and our Catholic agencies have profited mightily by this mess and they now have the temerity to scold the rest of us who see the problem they helped create and are trying to solve it.
Besides being a professional counselor, I was also the Director of my diocese’s Catholic Charities. I have seen how the Church’s involvement in illegal migration has had devastating effects on vulnerable people. Our Church’s ill-conceived “do-gooder” liberal nonsense in the name of “charity” has done immeasurable harm. It must stop.
Thank you; I share your conclusion: “The Church’s involvement in illegal migration/immigration has had devastating effects on vulnerable people.”
Deacon Peitler, in my comments here in this CWR article “Colorado’s bishops on immigration”, see the link, I am suggesting that some novel legislation is needed where input from people like yourself would carry more weight.
Incidentally you describe some difficult social problems that are not intrinsically to do with illegal entry; but could make continued residence illegal as well based on subsequent acts. Then, however, deporting a new father separates him from his American child. It’s obviously complicated and unjust all round -should such cases be left in the charge of the current system downplaying your evidences?
In the event such a father was allowed to remain he might then go on and have more children by other women? And so on.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/01/24/colorados-bishops-on-immigration-an-open-border-is-not-a-just-system/
Elias Galy:
Thank you for your comment and appreciating the complexities of this issue which I think are lost on most bishops who don’t have to deal directly with these pastoral issues. When laws are broken, the ramifications have a much greater ripple effect than those in governance in our Church realize. I would like to emphasize that, contrary to the impression our bishops like to leave, most of us WANT to have immgrants come here for a better life. But it must be done in an ordered manner so that it works to the benefit of all.
Mr Marcus, with respect one may uphold temporal law and order and have a heart at the same time. I think Governor Rick Perry said something to that effect concerning illegal immigration.
Strengthening and rewarding criminal trafficking cartels is not the way to run immigration. And it creates more of the violence and corruption that people are fleeing from in the first place.
Most of the migrants who come here would be assets to the US but they need to come lawfully and not through organized crime.
We read: “Or, perhaps we can all keep our collective heads in the sand and hold up pretty things to the light and admire their conceptual theoretical framework while the world burns down.”
You raise a good question. In response, four points:
FIRST, about the world burning, what does it mean, for example, when the cultural/political idiom of the “nation-state” framework (versus, say, family dynasties, or post-colonial/ “multi-national” states, or say, a “multi-state” nation as under global Islam)—crystalized in the West at the Reformation-era Council of Westphalia (1647)—starts to fray at the seams? Meaning modernday collisions of all these idioms, plus the persistence of post-colonial/autocratic/ dictatorial “failed states”—and, therefore on the ground, the human desperation of asylum and cross-boundary migration.
SECOND, the higher and yet useful “conceptual theoretical framework” might have something to do with the Catholic Social Teaching (CST). In summary, the Church’s entire social principles are simply applications of the moral virtues—justice, prudential judgment, temperance and courage, in addition to the foundational moral absolutes.
THIRD, it is courage rather than any “head-in-the-sand” intellectual exercise that enables us to see that each concrete human person is not a thing; that the family is not an arbitrary legal fiction either Qur’anic or Western; that solidarity means clustered human relationships are real but not exclusive; that subsidiarity means the state is not the definition of human community; that human work and the human worker are not commodities; that the poor of all kinds are not refuse; and that creation is a wonder which before it is found useful is given in the service of all. These are the principles of CST.
FOURTH, about what the CST means in concrete and detailed circumstances is especially a matter of prudential judgment. But, also and first, why not take seriously the historical and historic fact that the incarnational God himself has chosen to enter directly into this morass, and to take ALL of it upon himself? The more-than-theoretical anomaly of the divine commissioning (Mt 28:19) for the very human Apostolic Succession—namely the consecrated, personal and institutional (both) accountability of each bishop always in union with the successor of St. Peter.
Distinctly NOT simply a “conceptual theoretical framework.” Rather, a lot like the natural demand for any father to not abandon his family.
I am a simple believer and certainly do not have the academic training to be called a theologian. However, in my humble way, I have long been a student of scripture. Christ was explicit in ordaining his apostles, pastors, and teachers. Simon Magus exemplified the recognized authority of the apostles to cast out demons and offered money to Peter and John to buy such power, which they flatly rejected. Simply believing does not entitle one to the authority to ordain others to the priesthood, perform sacraments, and certainly not to form a church. For this reason, there is no church without apostolic authority. Followers of Christ are seekers of truth and at some point, they need to ask themselves by what authority their community exists.
Thomas James, Christian of some sort, has managed to rattle a lot of cages. His major premise is we’ve got all the right explanations for defending the truths of our faith, hierarchy, Holy Eucharist – ‘but when the rubber hits the road’ we’re lifeless. Whereas Christians with little or no in depth religious dogma carry on happily and with vitality.
Most of us make the mistake of buying into James’ thesis. Then strain to defend Catholicism. But wait! I’ve got all the answers’. Well, not really. Except to say the Catholic Church is too vast and complex in its presence throughout the planet. We can find vivacity and mediocrity, at least as perceived. By that I mean there’s a lot of interior sanctity out yonder where people lead a quiet life of prayer and sacrifice. Dynamics Senor Thomas James doesn’t see, largely because his vision is prefocused.
Furthermore, we can’t measure the Catholic living experience by optics precisely because of its interior rather than exterior nature. Take for example Mother Teresa of Calcutta who with her spiritual daughters were quietly doing God’s work virtually unknown to the world. Until it was noticed and persons like Malcolm Muggeridge visited, became convinced, and wrote about it om the world.
Now it’s true there’s lots of dead wood among the green. Then we’re a gigantic body of believers that make up the Body. The Mystical Body is too big for people who suffer myopia and notice only glitz and dazzle.