2 (of 2) AVATAR Mar. 3, 1987 at 18:32 Eastern (19753 characters) LESSON ONE Preface In these latter days, since the end of the Second Vatican Council there has been, throughout the country, a marked falloff of attendance among Catholics at the Divine Liturgy - especially on holydays - and at other sacraments, like the Sacrament of Reconciliation...Confession. We Byzantine Catholics have been as severely affected as any others. In some ways, even more so. At one time we had 26 holydays of obligation, since reduced to five, and the reduction itself has given the impression (or at least, the inference has been drawn) that attendance at holydays Liturgies is not a matter of great import. That inference can only be drawn where there is a fundamental lack of understanding concerning the very nature of the Divine Liturgy, the significance of it, the spiritual and divine realities which underly it. And so, part at least of the purpose of this series is to provide us with the background to make us better and more intelligent Catholics. For must of us, active catholicity presupposes and adequate understanding of, and grounding in, The Faith. It is not sufficient to presume that each of us has an intuitive grasp of the right and wrong of things sufficient to make us good Catholics without the need for constant learning either of the Scriptures or of the Teachings of the Church. We Byzantine Catholics have a special problem. Belonging, as we do, to a minority group within the Church, we must know not only the Latin Rite (which is, of course, by far the most commonly found rite) as well as your own. We must also be able to EXPLAIN our rite and the significance of it and its various elements for the benefit of those who are not as fortunate as are we, given as we have been by the great Grace of God to be members of the rite. The very nature of faith is such that unless we understand adequately the truths and implications of our religion, we can never deviate ourselves fully to its mission; that mission, none too surprisingly, is the molding of each of our individual lives to the Plan which God had in mind when He founded His Church in the very specific manner in which He did. And make no mistake about it...Faith DOES mean "giving ourselves over ENTIRELY" to the implementation of those truths (dogmas) which are taught by the Church as having the authority of Divine Revelation. There is truly no serving of two masters. For those who profess to believe what the Church teaches, and then live as though it had no meaning, there is the very definite risk if not the certainty, of being accused by God of knowing the truth and turning their backs on it. Attitudes such as these are far worse than the simple sins of human frailty. They indicate somedhing which may not be present in the sins of the flesh - deliberate, well-construed MALICE. Surely malicious sins, the malicious neglect of God Himself, as well as of His Chosen, is far more deserving of eternal punishment than sins of simple weakness. So I ask those of you who are gathered here, if there are any of you who have come out of no more than idle curiosity, but with no real desire to understand, only to see and to taste but never to swallow, to examine your motives carefully. You do neither yourselves nor the rest of us a favor. If you choose to stay, to learn, to understand and commit yourselves to the service of Christ, then truly "taste, and see, how sweet the Lord is!" THE EARLY ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES The world in which we live is one which frowns on dhe militantly authoritative structure of the Catholic Church. Particularly in the United States, which has the unfortunate habit of injecting "democratic" concepts and procedures into areas where democracy has nothing to do with anything. "Democracy" has no place in an operating room, or in the realm of natural law. The Law of Gravity requires no public consensus to make it valid, or to make it work. The Laws of Thermodynamics, of the Conservation of Energy, or the Conservation of Angular Momentum are no more subject to popular approval for their working than the laws governing the interaction of forces at atomic and sub-atomic levels. Atomic bombs will blow up when the detonators are triggered, even though 5 billion people are firmly set against it. Simply agreeing that they ought not be used will in no way prevent them from exploding when the mechanisms are placed into action. We (of the Catholic Church) are called a "monolithic" organization, (from the Greek "mono + lithos", "single stone") a religious dictatorship, lacking in a sense of democracy. We are judged spineless, because we let Rome tell us what to do, what to think, tell us what is right and what is wrong, and even to make laws for us. Be that as it may, I contend that it does not make us EITHER weak or spineless, for we, at least, with all charity in the saying of it, have the courage to live up to what we see to be the Hand of God arranging things in His Providence for the benefit of the entire human race; the Plan He gave the world was one which would have to be valid for all times, and for all peoples, of every country, in every place, in every time and in every clime. For that to work, the most fundamental concept of any organization's success was required: the principle of authority. That the principle happens to conflict with what we consider in the last quarter of the Twentieth Century to be right and proper in the relations of man to man, and of man to the societi in which he lives there can be no doubt. True, Thomas Jefferson wrote the words in our Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that..." etc. And surely, I do not disagree that it IS true that men ARE endowed by their creator with "certain unalienable rights." I deny that it is self- evident; for if it IS self-evident, how then do we explain the 90% of the world around us which has still not seen the "self-evidence" of it? It simply is NOT true that in all societies and organizations that the power to govern comes from the "consent of the governed." That may be true in the political sphere - but not within the Kingdom of God. There can be no doubt, either that even in the most liberal of democracies, defiance toward established authority will not be tolerated, and in this respect a democracy is no different than a monarchy or dictatorship. The fact that those who wield the authority hap@en to be elected by some of the population has relatively little to do with the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that this authority IS being wielded, and wielded over those who object to the fact that we have no say in the emplacement in power of those who rule over us. It is enough for us, Catholics, that God has the say. We have no quarrel with those who would prefer it otherwise. The fact of history, and even of the Scriptures, is plain, that God DID have a special plan in mind, that he DID put this plan into concrete effect. That is quite readily seen by a simple reading of the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles is St. Luke's chronicle of the earliest and one of the most critical phases in the history of the Church, the period when the Apostles were still debating among themselves whether God's message of the Coming of the Kingdom of God belonged first (or even exclusively) to the Jews, or to the Gentiles, ob to both. Through the various disputes between Saint Peter and Saint Paul, the intervention of Saint James, the activities of Barnabas, Mark, and others of the Apostles, several things become clear. 1) THIS Church was to be a corporate unity of those who had been saved through their belief in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, in His Divine Nature and mission and through the grace earned by Him and given in Baptism. 2) It was to be a union of FAITH AND LOVE IN THE HOPE OF THE LIFE TO COME. This principle, not that of authority, is the keystone, the PRIMARY mark of God's Church, for even authority is that to be used in service, service to God and to those beloved of Him. It is no accident that the motto of the Holy Fathers is "Servus Servorum Dei," the "Servant of the Servants of God." One ought not to leap to the conclusion, however, that such a servant is there to do for us what WE wish done. He is there to do for us what The Lord wishes done - even as we are here for the same function. "See how these Christians love one another." Though we find the frequent mention of the phrases referring to mutual love, esteem and service, we find little or no reference to attitudes of subservience. Obedience and subservience are very different things, not intrinsically related to each other in any meaningful way. The Church of Jesus Christ is not composed, nor can it be, of fearful, timid, spineless wretches, bowing and scraping in fear at the mere threat of punishment. What obedience WE offer is that of gift, not that of a placatory sacrifice of an implacable deity. 3) As an expression of this love and faith, a visible sign of hope in a life to come, there was to be a visible sacrifice, the re- enactment (in a sense, though to be precise, it is not a RE-enactment, but the mysterious and unbloody sacrifice itself, taken outside of time and space such that we are all present at it, instead of looking backward at it through the long eyes of retrospect) of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. The Divine Liturgy is NOT a re-enactment in the precise sense of the term, nor is it like a television re-run. It IS the sacrifice of Calvary itself, the very same, not a mock imitation, nor a staged reproduction, nor a symbolic representation thereof. To provide this constant presence of the Sacrifice of Calvary, of course, a dedicated and a consecrated priesthood was necessary to maintain the links throughout the passage of time. That requirement was met at the Last Supper, when the Lord Himself consecrated His first priests, though they had each been chosen individually long years before as he met them, one by one, and said "Come! Follow Me!" It was at this meal that He consecrated them and gave them a mission, saying "Do this in commemoration of Me!" This mission was the micsion (from the Latin "missio," "sending forth") of love, which Christ had clearly stated shortly before He gave them their mission. In evidence of this we have the High Priestly Prayer of Christ at that supper: "I pray for them, Father....that they may be One, Father, as I in Thee, and Thou in Me. not for the world do I pray, but for those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one." Now it is certainly evident that the unity existing between the Father and the Son can be nothing other than the bond of Love. So much so that we know from our Catechisms that the veryfruit of this love is another Divine Person - the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself. 4) At the head of this "collegium" or "college" (from the Latin "collegio," the same root which gives us the word "collection") there was set one who was to guide and strengthen his brethren, the brethren of Christ Himself; and who was later, after the Resurrection, given the task of feeding the sheep and lambs of the Shepherd. (A side note here: Matthew 16:16 is not the actual installation of Peter as the guide of the College of Apostles. That occasion is merely the promise of it. The actual accreditation of Peter as the head of this college on earth is found in John, Chapter 20). 5) The Acts of the Apostles clearly shows that those same Apostles, acting directly under the influence of the Holy Spirit Himself, chose those who were to assist them in the performance of their ministry. They chose seven "deacons" (from the Greek "diakoneo," "to wait on, to serve, to furnish") of whom Stephen was the first, to administer the physical goods of the Church; St. Paul himself appointed Timothy a bishop, Barnabas became bishop of Cyprus under the aegis of and with the approval of Apostles still alive at the time, and there are frequent references in the Acts to "presbyters" ("Elders" though the term has no necessary reference to chronological age, but rather to the wisdom and prudence of the parties - perhaps a more apt term would be "sages") who were to perform that sacrificial ritual for and in the individual various communities. These references are also very common within the Epistles of St. Paul. Even though there may be some dispute over the exact meaning of the words "presbyter" and "deacon" there can be no doubt that there was certainly a visible hierarchy established UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION ITSELF to help in the guidance of the Kingdom of God on Earth, and to keep it forever free from teaching error; viz. a college of founders, the Apostles, at the head of which was found one of the Apostles himself, Peter; those who were dedicated by the apostles to the administration of the Church properties; and those who were consecrated by the Apostles (and by those consecrated by them in their own turn) to the administration of the religious affairs of the Church and for the performing of sacrifice for the community. 6) The Apostles were rather more than bishops, since dhey had several things no current bishop has, even though today's bishops ARE, in a very real sense, the successors of the Apostles. The differences essentially boil down to these: a) The Apostles enjoyed the privilege of having been taught by Christ Himself, and having lived with Him for a period of at least three years. b) Their authority was equal, except in the case of Peter, who had been charged to guide and strengthen the rest; and their authority depended upon the choice of the individual AS an Apostle by Christ Himself. Witness, for example, the case of St. Paul who was quite fully convinced (and managed to convince the other Apostles as well, though with some difficulty it would appear) that he, too, was an Apostle in every bit as full a sense as was St. Peter. Paul, though he often disagreed with Peter, did respect Peter's position and actually brought his disagreements TO Peter for solution. Thic did not, however, prevent Paul from speaking out when he thought Peter in danger of committing a mistake, as in the case where he reminded Peter of the prophetic dream Peter had been vouchsafed at Joppa. c) The authority of Apostles, unlike that of bishops, was not restricted to a given area as is that of bishops today. Their authority was recognized in every area. While St. John was alive, even though there were bishops in other areas to solve problems, recource was had often to him for the solution to difficult problems. It is interesting to note, however, that in the "Case of the Corinthians" (ah! those Corinthians!), recourse was had to Pope Clement in Rome to settle a doctrinal dispute, EVEN THOUGH ST. JOHN WAS YET ALIVE AND LIVING ON PATMOS, FAR CLOSER TO CORINTH THAN WAS ROME. (Patmos is just the other side of the Aegean Sea from Corinth. Rome was a long and dangerous trip by sea and even longer and more dangerous by land). d) The Apostles had the authority to choose their own successors, personally, instead of waiting for approval from others, even Peter, as is clear from the appointments of St. Paul to the heads of the Churches in Cyprus, Crete and other places in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). Peter, too, left someone in his stead when he left Antioch for Rome, and the other Apostles, from tradition, accepted another man to take the place of St. James as Bishop of Jerusalem, even though other Apostles still lived - though it must be said that the successor to St. James is never mentioned as being on a par with the Apostles. e) The Apostles had the gift of *personal* inspiration, and they had it by virtue of a promise of Christ Himself, who promised that He would send them another Comforter who would lead them into the ways of all truth. They would be protected from error, and guarded from extinction. From these five points, several things become immediately evident: i.) That Christ definitely DID establish a visible organization to His Church, and that it was to be united by and in the bonds of love, and guided in the use of the authority he gave it by that very same love; ii.) That that organization had very definite and clear divisions; i.e., faithful, administrators, sacrificers, rulers, and guides. iii.) That these divisions should all share the tremendous love God has for mankind, and that they would share as well in the divine promises of guidance and protection. iv.) That that guidance and protection COULD come directly and personally as is witnessed by the extraordinary charisms of the early Church, but that it would *ordinarily* come, for most of the members, THROUGH the community, the organizational structure itself. v.) That this organization, visible and authoritative, was intended by Christ to be for the salvation of "every man who comes into the world." "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." "Hide not your light under a bushel. Let your light shine, that the world might be converted and live." vi.) That since this organization was to be for all men of all times, in every place and time and clime, authority was given by God for the Apostles to choose successors to themselves, and these theirs, and so on, down to the very end of time itself. If it is not yet clear what pertinence any of this has for the function I explained in Sunday's sermon - the absolute necessity of the Divine Liturgy in the process of sanctification, both of individual sanctity and of the sanctification of the world, bear with me. It will become clear as time passes - I hope. Next I will try to trace the movement of the Church across the Roman Empire, and try to show you that in the early church there was no such thing as a concept of "rite" until very nearly the third century.