Unity in Christ: Bishops, Synodality, and Communion 0813237319, 9780813237312

Citation preview

Foreword by Cardinal Mario Grech

BISHOPS, SYNODALITY, AND COMMUNION

Unity in Christ Archbishop Anthony Fisher, OP

UNITY IN CHRIST

Praise for Unity in Christ “Archbishop Fisher is one of the finest thinkers in the Church today. Here he delivers a profound reflection on communio, communion in the Body of Christ, rooted in his close reading of the Gospels and a return to the sources of the Church’s tradition. He reminds us that while the Church is divine, it is also human, and we are not immune from the pressures of division and faction that affect every institution. In this thoughtful book, addressed to bishops, he shows us the path to seek fraternity and friendship in Christ, united in His Word of truth. I pray that Archbishop Fisher’s reflections will stir us to be ever more united in our love for Jesus Christ, and our desire to proclaim Him as the way, the truth, and the life for the human family.” —Most Reverend José H. Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles; President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2019–2022)

“These lectures first delivered at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are written in an engaging style that mingles theology with history, literature and popular culture. The author is the Archbishop of Sydney, a member of the Order of Preachers, and a former lawyer with a doctorate from Oxford University. But for his religious vocation he may have become a high court judge. Reading these lectures is like reading a high court judgement that takes opposing arguments, presents each of them in its best light, and then offers a synthesis of the two in which reason and rhetoric play together. As he unpacks the concepts of ‘Communio’ and ‘Synodality’ in the context of the vocation of a bishop, he also demonstrates how Christology and Pneumatology always play together.” —Tracey Rowland, University of Notre Dame (Australia)

“This work offers a wonderful spiritual and ecclesiological consideration of the episcopacy in the Catholic Church. Starting from a consideration of the apostolic origins of the Church, Archbishop Fisher helpfully considers modern magisterial teachings on the Church, communion, collegiality and the living work of synodality that unfolds from these. His theoretical and practical reflections on the office of the bishop provide numerous insights that are vital for those who seek to understand the theology of the Church. This volume effectively constitutes one of the very best introductions to the theology of the episcopacy available.” —Thomas Joseph White, OP, Rector, Angelicum, Rome

UNITY IN CHRIST

Bishops, Synodality, and Communion

Anthony Fisher, OP Foreword by Cardinal Mario Grech

The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2023 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

∞ Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: 978-0-8132-3731-2 eISBN: 978-0-8132-3732-9

CONTENTS

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Foreword by Cardinal Mario Grech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Part I: Sources 1. Fraternity and Communio among the Apostles . . . . . . 7 2. Episcopal Fraternity and Communio in the Tradition . . 23 3. Vatican II on Collegiality and Pope Francis on Synodality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Part II: Living Episcopal Unity 4. Episcopal Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5. Episcopal Friendship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6. Episcopal Preaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Concluding Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

v

A B B R EV I AT I O N S

AAS

Acta Sanctae Sedis

AG

Ad gentes

CCC

Catechism of the Catholic Church

CIC

Codex iuris canonici

CN

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Communionis notio: On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (1992)

DV

Dei verbum

EG

Evangelii gaudium

EIA

Ecclesia in America

GS

Gaudium et spes

LG

Lumen gentium

NMI

Novo Millennio Ineunte

RF

Relatio Finalis

SC

Sacrosanctum concilium

ST

Summa theologiae

UR

Unitatis redintegratio

USCCB

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

vi

FOREWORD

F

or the most authoritative and most comprehensive teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in recent centuries regarding the nature and mission of the church, we must turn to the Second Vatican Council. We find that teaching not only in the Council’s two constitutions on the church (Lumen gentium and Gaudium et spes), but also in diverse aspects of the Council’s whole teaching throughout all its sixteen documents. While the Council’s regular term for the church across all those documents is “the People of God,” the church’s origins in the divine Trinity is tellingly captured in the very last article of Lumen gentium’s second chapter, “On the People of God.” Here, the church is described in trinitarian terms as “the People of God [the Father], the Body of the Lord [Jesus Christ], and the Temple of the Holy Spirit” (LG 17). The last descriptor is important. During the sessions of Vatican II, according to the perceptions of the invited observers and guests from the Orthodox and Protestant churches and ecclesial communities, the role of the Holy Spirit in the church was being neglected in the emerging conciliar documents. With ecumenical openness, the Council responded and, indeed, gave more and more acknowledgment to the indispensable role in the church of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit—it is the Spirit who enlightens the baptized faithful to interpret with fidelity the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the contingencies of every age and to remain in communion through the centuries. It is the Holy Spirit who is the source of communion among all the baptized throughout the world, the communion among all the local churches throughout the world, and the communion among all the bishops of those local churches throughout the world, with and under the bishop of Rome. Accordingly, Pope Francis sums up this and many other aspects of Vatican II’s teaching with his notion of “a synodal church,” calling all in the church to a synodal conversion: “A synodal Church is a Church which listens. . . . It is a mutual listening vii

viii |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

in which everyone has something to learn. The faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’ (Rv 2:7).”1 The church, he recalls from Vatican II, listens to the Holy Spirit by listening to the Spirit’s instrument of divine communication, “the supernatural sensus fidei [sense of the faith] of the whole people” by which the church is infallible in believing (LG 12). Pope Francis is hoping to give greater trinitarian balance to the way Catholics envision and participate in the life and mission of the church, especially by emphasizing the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit in what is called “the economy of salvation.” Evoking the image of St. Irenaeus of the Word and the Spirit as the two hands of God, Vatican II states that the church, “according to the plan of the Father, . . . has its origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit” (AG 2). Archbishop Anthony Fisher, in this engaging and persuasive book, doesn’t attempt to address all these and other aspects of Vatican II’s full vision of the church. Rather, his particular focus is the communion among bishops. One of the great fruits of the Second Vatican Council is its teaching on episcopal collegiality. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’s second chapter on the whole church speaks of all the baptized making up the People of God— and this includes the hierarchy (i.e., popes, bishops, priests, and deacons). Lumen gentium goes on, in its third chapter, to treat specifically of the hierarchy within the People of God, but never apart from it. It is this that is Archbishop Fisher’s book’s specific focus: the role of bishops within the broader dynamic of the church’s life and mission. Addressing the often-onerous role of bishops in the church today, he movingly and honestly describes their role of ecclesial “oversight” as often a lonely and challenging one. He presents a poignant appeal to what he calls “episcopal fraternity.” Many bishops can experience in their ministry a sense of isolation both from their laity and from their priests—very often through no fault of their own. To whom can they turn for advice and support? Quite often the only others they can really turn to in confidence are one another, their fellow bishops.

Foreword | ix

This book is a plea for bishops to care for one another, despite their often widely divergent interpretations of what episcopal fidelity to the living “tradition that comes from the apostles” (DV 8.12) means in the twenty-first century. While transparency in today’s church is legitimately demanded, the reality of episcopal oversight is still a private burden. The author portrays this burden in a compelling way. The book’s particular value is its most welcome call for a robust but gracious fraternity and dialogue among bishops— what fidelity means is never obvious, and no one episcopal lobby group has a claim on the truth. In our church today, where sometimes fractious relationships and the so-called culture wars can seriously impede the church’s divine mission, this book offers a much-needed reminder that all bishops, and indeed all Catholics, must commit themselves to unity in the church, all the while respecting the diversity of interpretations ( just like in the New Testament) of how the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be faithfully lived in today’s world. Bishops must not only listen to the sensus fidei of the whole church, they are also called to listen to one another in their fellow bishops’ perceptions of what fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ means in the twenty-first century. I thank Archbishop Fisher for addressing this important aspect of episcopal conversion to a more synodal church. May this book find a wide readership, not only among bishops, but among priests, religious, and laity. M A R I O C A R D I NAL GR ECH

Secretary General for the Synod

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

M

y thanks to all those involved in organizing the 2022 Special Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at which I presented these chapters as talks: Most Rev. José Gomez, archbishop of Los Angeles and then USCCB president, and other members of the conference who issued the invitation; Most Rev. David Talley, bishop of Memphis, who chaired the Planning Committee for the assembly, and his fellow committee members, who shaped the week; Fr. Michael Fuller, the general secretary of the conference and his staff, with many locals from San Diego who staffed the assembly itself. My gratitude also to my research assistant, Alexander Westenberg, and subsequently Lawrence Qummou, and to my private secretary, Kieran Walton, who assisted me along the way. In a year that ended with the death of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI and a new year that began with the death of my predecessor as archbishop of Sydney and long-time mentor, Cardinal George Pell, I dedicate this humble work to their memory in appreciation for all they did for our church.

xi

INTRODUCTION

J

ust before his arrest and trials, Christ celebrated his Last Supper with the Twelve. The synoptic Gospels record his prayer of institution of the Holy Eucharist and his prayer for deliverance in the Garden of Gethsemane, but the Gospel of John gives us much greater insight into what was on Jesus’ mind on that night he was betrayed. Troubled in spirit, aware that he was about to be betrayed, denied, and deserted, conscious also that he would soon be “glorified” in his Passion and return to his Father, he was anxious for his disciples. He gave them a last lesson through washing their feet and instructing them about authority and service, about confidence in the Father, in the Spirit and in himself, and about the meaning of persecution and suffering. He taught them about truth and above all love. He prayed over them what has come to be called his “high-priestly prayer,” praying for their peace, joy, and eternal life.1 In a few verses Jesus asks five times that the Father keep his disciples united: Now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them . . . but now I am coming to you.... Sanctify them in the truth.... I do not pray for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, with me in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you sent me and have loved them as you love me. . . . Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. —Jn 17:11–24

1

2 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

He prays for the Twelve who are then with him, and presumably for his other disciples; he also prays for their successors. Unity thus goes to the core both of their identity and of their mission. Why was unity to be essential to who they are and what we do? Because without it they will not “keep in God’s name” and will not be “sanctified in his Word of truth.” God and the things of God may sometimes be paradoxical, even ineffable. But we cannot all believe contradictory things about God and all be right. What’s more, unity is essential to their giving witness in the world (“so that the world may know . . .”). He says that he is sending them into the world as he was sent, and others would come to believe through him and believe in him through them. However, unity as a principle for worldly success is unremarkable: clearly a message will only persuade people to the degree that its messengers are able to agree on its contents; and if they are manifestly at odds, this will hardly be a magnet to others. Disunity is always a scandal. Yet the unity for which Christ prays is about more than “team unity,” with all the members “on the same page”; it goes beyond unity in the corporate or bureaucratic sense. The paradigm of unity that Jesus offers repeatedly to his disciples is that between the Father and Son: “that they may be one, even as we are one.” Christ’s repeated call to being godlike has many dimensions, but here we get a central one: to be united after the pattern of the Holy Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are so identified that much of what we say of one can be equally said of the others; they pour out their love upon each other, sharing in the godhead and giving each other identity and mission; they work together in creation and redemption. So, too, Christ’s disciples must be so identified in what they believe and do that we can speak of “Christians” or “the church” as a single entity, and the things we say of all we mean of each member. Only then will Christ’s own joy, love, or glory—what we call “grace”—be shared with them and be evident to others. Only then will they be able to resist the persecutions “of this world” and of “the evil one.” Thus, the fraternal bonds evident in the New Testament are more than a team-building strategy to maximize effectiveness: they are the result of deep conversion and identification with God. This marks, amongst other

Introduction | 3

things, the starting point for episcopal fraternity and communio— the subject of the present work. This book began as a series of talks given to the Special Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June 2022. Periodically the USCCB sets aside its entire weeklong meeting for spiritual exercises. Ordinary business is forbidden, and the bishops go on a kind of retreat together, with talks, liturgy, and confession. It is not all sacred silence: there is social time together, also. It is very healthy. This meant the meeting was not just directed to issues of episcopal communion but also instantiated it. But why was I asked to address this particular topic? I guess because episcopal fraternity and communio are perennially important, and because at present they are challenged. We are very aware of the massive political and cultural divides in many Western societies— not just the United States—and the ways these culture wars infect the church. To some extent this is inevitable. In his very text on Christian unity, John’s Jesus says Christians are “in the world but not of it” (Jn 17:14, 16). Because we are in the world, we cannot avoid being affected by the disputes going on around us; indeed, sometimes it is our duty to engage with some of them. But because we are not of the world, we must maintain our essential unity as a church, or as a college of bishops, amidst such contention. My days with the U.S. bishops proved most enjoyable. There is friendship and fraternal support amongst them and a passion for building up the kingdom of God amongst the men and women of that land. Thank God for that. It was a true honor to address a group of bishops larger than the body at the Councils of Nicaea and Trent! My response to the central question of episcopal togetherness consists of two parts, with three chapters in each. In the first part, I consider the sources from which we must draw in order to understand episcopal fraternity and communio. In chapter 1 I take a look at these aspects of ecclesial life in the teaching of Christ and the experience of the apostolic generation. In chapter 2 I present a panoramic look at these themes as they developed in the patristic and medieval eras. In chapter 3 we will consider Vatican II’s recovery of the language of “collegiality” and communio and some post-

4 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

conciliar developments, particularly in thinking about “synodality.” Often I offer snapshots rather than a comprehensive account of what everyone has said. But I hope it gives a sense of how we came to think the way we do about episcopal (and priestly) fraternity, and more generally about friendship and communion amongst Christians. In part two I integrate my own experience of fraternity and communio as a bishop and reflect upon how they play out in various dimensions of our lives as pastors—in particular, in our spirituality (chapter 4), friendships (chapter 5) and preaching (chapter 6). Some of what is expressed in this part may reflect my circumstances: as I joked during the conference, I probably sounded like Crocodile Dundee to my hearers, and my academic background in moral theology and bioethics might have led to an expectation that I would address issues such as “Cloning priests: is this a legitimate response to the vocations shortage?” or “Euthanasia for suffering bishops: why and why not?” I am no expert in ecclesiology. But after twenty years as a bishop, I’ve had some experience of episcopal togetherness and the challenges to it and of it. I have also had some pastoral responsibility for fellow bishops. And as a member of the Synod Council, I’ve followed closely the recent focus on synodality itself. So, however Australian, Dominican, or moral theological these musings seem, I trust they will offer a wider audience some insight into how the theology of episcopal fraternity and communio is concretely lived, warts and all. In my concluding reflections, I offer some musings on the state of our communion, fraternal correction, and some other matters, drawing together the two parts of this book through the medium of an apocryphal Fourth Epistle of St. John. My hope and prayer are that this work will be a worthy contribution to episcopal togetherness in the spirit of Christ’s high-priestly prayer: “that they may be one.”

PA R T I Sources

1

Fraternity and Communio among the Apostles

F R AT E R N I T Y, C O M M U N I O , E P I S C O PA C Y

F

or the average American, the word “fraternity” may well evoke a secret society of college students enjoying some common life, carrying on rather raucously at times, and being decorated with Greek letters. The more historically conscious might reach for the banners of the French revolution, Freemasons, and Odd Fellows. And the more spiritual of us will think of those religious movements, such as the orders of friars, who call each other “brother” or “sister.” But for the Christian conception of fraternity, we naturally begin with the apostolic generation. At least four of the apostles were blood brothers: Simon and Andrew BarJona and James and John Bar-Zebedee.1 But the word ἀδελφὸς (brother) was used loosely in the Jewish culture of the time to include relative or friend, fellow tribe member, officeholder, or believer.2 “Brotherhood” suggests a certain human solidarity or intimacy akin to that in a family. But the apostles were also brothers in a spiritual sense: Jesus called them “the Brothers” or “my brothers”—a title they continued to use for themselves and the broader community of Christians after his ascension.3 Jesus made it clear that this spiritual fraternity was more important than any natural one.4 We are children of the one Father-God.5 Much of Jesus’ teaching was in fact about how spiritual siblings and friends should love, for example: You have heard it said of old: you shall not kill. But I say to you that if you even nurse anger towards a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment [as if you had done them a violence]; that if you insult a brother or sister by calling them an “idiot,” you will be liable to the Council; and that if you defame a

7

8 |

SOURCES

brother or sister as a “traitor,” you will be liable to hell-fire. So before offering your gift at the altar . . . be reconciled to your brother or sister.6

The early Christians honored their brotherhood; they sought to demonstrate φιλαδελφία (brotherly love); they greeted each other with a fraternal kiss; they deplored division and failures of love.7 So we have the beginnings of the Christian notion of fraternity. Next, communio. We find the word κοινωνίᾳ (or related forms) in forty-three verses of the New Testament and other words expressing a similar idea. It meant fellowship, participation, sharing, or communion—a richer term than “brotherhood” and the subject of considerable theological reflection.8 Κοινωνίᾳ is used in (at least) three senses in the New Testament and apostolic tradition: first, to describe the internal life of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, a God whose very being is sharing; second, to describe the relationship of Christians with those divine persons (or with Christ in his passion, resurrection, and glory, in his mystical body the church, or in his sacramental body the Eucharist); and third, to describe the inner life of the church where disciples commune with God and each other through sharing wealth and gifts, faith and sacraments.9 Κοινωνίᾳ is “the Church living the mystery of Christ in the apostolic faith by the power of the Spirit.”10 Parallel language to κοινωνίᾳ includes that of the persons of God or the disciples being one with each other,11 or the disciples being in the persons of God,12 or the divine life, love, word, or persons being in the disciples.13 Throughout his time with the disciples, Jesus formed them for a new relationship to him and each other as citizens of one kingdom, worshippers in a Temple, sheep of a flock, fish in a net, branches of a vine, diners at a banquet, passengers in a boat; Paul suggested they think of themselves as members (parts) of one body.14 All these images emphasized the interdependence of Christ’s disciples: their reliance on him as their king, lord, shepherd, trunk, host, captain, head; their collaboration with each other; their physical, emotional, above all spiritual unity. The first Christians experienced the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost as a

Fraternity among the Apostles | 9

reversal of Cain’s fratricide and Babel’s division of humanity into uncomprehending language groups: a new Israel was being created with the faithful of every nation.15 In the Acts of the Apostles, we are told that the early Christians devoted themselves “to the teaching of the apostles and to the κοινωνίᾳ (fellowship), to the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers.”16 And so we have the beginnings of the Christian notion of communio. Third,“episcopacy.” The Hebrew word zaqen (elder) appears 179 times in the Old Testament.17 The zaqenim had authority under the Law of Moses as teachers and leaders. In the Septuagint and the New Testament this was translated as πρεσβύτερος (presbyter or elder), especially when referring to the Jewish leaders. But the Septuagint also used ἐπίσκοπος. In Homer’s Odyssey an ἐπίσκοπος refers to those responsible for safekeeping a ship’s cargo; in Sophocles and Plato it means overseers or guardians; and in Aristophanes it meant an official sent to serve as an administrator of a subject state.18 The New Testament received both the words πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος and applied them more or less interchangeably to those who presided over the early churches.19 These leaders were distinguished from the apostles and the faithful and eventually from each other, as the early church settled into a hierarchy of bishop, presbyter-priest, and deacon.20 Interestingly, when considering episcopal fraternity and communion, these New Testament terms are most often used in the plural form of the apostles, or the elders, or the apostles and elders, suggesting that these church leaders were a stable group who often acted together. In the background are the concepts of a priestly caste or fraternity and of a πρεσβυτέριον, or council of elders.21 Thus in the job description for a bishop offered in the pastoral epistles, many of the “desired attributes” bear immediately upon our themes of fraternity and communion: bishops must be familiar, open, and trustworthy, not overbearing, excitable, or querulous!22 So, we have the beginnings of the Christian notions of fraternity, communion, and episcopacy—which will be refined in the subsequent reflections.

10 |

SOURCES

T H E T W E LV E D U R I N G T H E L I F E O F J E S U S In response to repeated bandying of the term “collegiality” during the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani said that the only example he could find in the Bible of the apostles acting collegially was in the Garden of Gethsemane, when “they all deserted him and fled.”23 That’s amusing but not quite fair. I’d like to consider how fraternity and communio really played out in their lives to the extent that we know them. As I recall something of their character and experience, readers might consider how this resonates in their own selves and lives. In the crowd-funded TV series The Chosen, Dallas Jenkins has created a life of Jesus as seen through the eyes of his followers. The callings of Simon, Matthew, and Nicodemus (season 1, episodes 4 and 7) are especially compelling. Three men, different in temperament, history, and concerns, surrender in turn: the impulsive fisherman, in the face of impending bankruptcy and a miraculous haul of fish that paid off all his debts; the autistic accountant, who witnessed and meticulously recorded the same incident before being called out of his counting house; and the rabbi who brings his faith and doubts to Jesus and ends up worshipping him. From the beginning of his public life, Jesus chose, called, instructed, and commissioned certain men to be his ἀποστόλου (apostles, sent ones, delegates, messengers); there were ultimately a dozen of these “apostles,” and so they were known as “the Twelve”—the number suggesting a new Twelve Tribes of Israel of which they would be fathers.24 His ἐκκλησία (church, assembly, or gathering of disciples) and its new religion would be apostolic from the get-go. The Twelve were not his only followers: there were the women who provided for them; those whom Peter later described as “the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,” including the seventy Jesus sent out ahead of him in pairs to the places he intended to preach; the five hundred whom Paul says saw the Risen Lord; the thousands who saw his signs or heard his words, and followed him for a time; as well as some he had healed.25 But in many ways the Gospels are the stories of Jesus and the Twelve in particular. Thus the bishops, as succes-

Fraternity among the Apostles | 11

sors of the apostles, have a unique relationship to those Gospels: most obviously as their guardians and transmitters, but also because the Gospels are their story also. The Twelve “gathered around Jesus” and were “with Jesus” night and day for perhaps three years.26 Unlike the crowds who witnessed occasional signs and wonders, they saw them all: water into wine, many healings, walking on water, calming storms, raising the dead, appearing after his resurrection, ascending into heaven. . . . They even provided the wherewithal for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, directing the crowd, distributing, and then gathering up the leftovers, as if ministers at the Eucharist.27 Then there was his teaching. The apostles were “students of the one teacher” who had private tutorials from Jesus explaining “all the mysteries” to them.28 They heard him preach the sublime Sermon on the Mount, the parables, and his many other explanations and directions. Together they were taught many things: about God and his kingdom; about family, neighbors, enemies, worldly goods; about prayer and worship, fasting and alms; about Christian perfection and true happiness through commandments and beatitudes, justice and mercy, peacemaking and (above all) love; and about his mission and theirs.29 They were taught about authority as service and greatness through smallness—a lesson that had to be repeated often.30 They were promised that they would be richly rewarded for their faithful service and share in the joy of their Master;31 they were also promised that they would be hated and persecuted for being Christians and told they must share his cross before sharing his glory.32 How did they respond? Often with immediate assent and sometimes professing him with confidence.33 But their faith was weak, at least until Pentecost, or we could say it ran hot and cold, for which Jesus sometimes offered them correction, sometimes persuasive signs and wonders, and sometimes remedial catechesis.34 They often mistook his meaning and were bone-headed about his kind of messiahship and his predicted passion, death, and rising.35 Their response to his signs and teachings varied: they could be amazed, enlightened, and elated or confused, terrified, and depressed, but mostly they were these things together.36 Though

12 |

SOURCES

individual disciples sometimes asked their own questions or were given particular tasks, they mostly “hunted as a pack.” The Twelve all joined Jesus for his Last Supper, where they fought again over who was greatest, so he washed their feet, instructed them one last time about authority and service (as well as about truth and love), and prayed for their unity.37 They witnessed the institution of the Eucharist and shared in that Heavenly Banquet.38 Having all promised to support and never betray him, they slept when asked to pray with him and fled at the first sign of danger; Judas betrayed him radically, and Peter denied him thrice.39 But even this terrible turn of events did not drive them apart. As an army cadet at school, I was taken to a rifle range to practice shooting. I was not a natural hunter. When my paper target was brought back for review, there was not a single hole in it.“Very well grouped, Cadet Fisher,” the sergeant wryly said. Well, on Good Friday the apostles were very well grouped—it’s just that they were way off target. But they retreated to the upper room where they’d last seen Christ.40 After his death and resurrection he appeared to them there again and elsewhere.41 They witnessed his ascension together.42 But first they received the Great Commission.43 Thus, the friendship and fraternity of the apostles was founded upon a common relationship to Christ that included being called, gathering, witnessing, and responding together. They experienced similar hopes, limitations, and emotions as they walked with him. In addition to his signs and teachings, they received the one Bread and Cup and their post-Resurrection faith, were prayed for by Jesus and graced by God, and mostly hung together through good times and bad. T H E T W E LV E A F T E R J E S U S ’ A S C E N S I O N In the post-ascension period, the apostles could no longer gather around Jesus physically present as the principle of their unity. Yet they still communed with him. When they gathered in prayer, they experienced him in their midst “wherever two or three gather in my name.”44 When they congregated for the Eucharist, “they rec-

Fraternity among the Apostles | 13

ognized him in the Breaking of the Bread.”45 When they received the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, they knew it was in fulfillment of his promise and to give witness to him.46 When they preached, worked miracles, suffered, or shepherded, they were again doing what he had predicted, commanded, and enabled, and they knew he was with them.47 And to commune with the Risen Lord was to commune with each other. Though sent out to all the world, the apostles long remained “together in the one place” in Jerusalem.48 Even when the church dispersed during the first persecution, the apostles stayed put and together for a time.49 In the Acts of the Apostles Luke is very strong on the unity of the apostles, describing the early disciples as “all of one accord,” “devoted to the fellowship,” “holding all in common,” and “of one heart and soul.”50 They prayed together and with the other disciples; celebrated the Breaking of the Bread and the other “sacraments”; and experienced the grace of the Holy Spirit in common.51 When they preached, worked miracles, or shepherded, they did so in concert.52 They gave witness together and were arrested, tried, and punished together.53 In several places Acts uses the phrase “Peter and the other apostles” and “Peter stood up and spoke.”54 Though the apostles governed the early church together—for example, in choosing a replacement for Judas, deciding how best to distribute the church’s resources, choosing and appointing the deacons, confirming Paul’s mission, and deciding whether to continue to abide by the Torah55—Peter was clearly their leader as Christ had commissioned him to be.56 In time they appointed bishops or elders to share in their tasks of shepherding, witnessing, teaching, and sanctifying, and so we hear repeated reference to “the apostles and elders.”57 Of course, there were tensions. Paul was not easy to work with: he burnt bridges with his “pastoral associates” and bristled at having to answer to Peter and the others.58 Despite Luke’s idyllic description of the early church, there were inevitably disagreements. There was a lethal division over surrendering property to the apostles; some complained that the collections weren’t going to those most in need, others that the apostles should keep out of

14 |

SOURCES

such practical matters; some thought it a very bad idea to admit the former persecutor Saul as one of the faithful and apostles, others were uncomfortable with Peter eating with uncircumcised converts. Jews resented the new “sect”; magicians contended for its spiritual power; pagans pressed their own claims and at one stage attempted to worship Barnabas and Paul!59 To summarize, then: After the ascension the apostles were a tight-knit group, living a common life. Acts highlights their communion: their being “at one” with Christ and each other in their spiritual experiences, prayer, and worship, preaching and healing, shepherding and suffering. In time they appointed bishops or elders to share in the tasks of leading, testifying, teaching, and sanctifying. There were tensions—some serious—and resolutions— some successful. Lest their continuing communion with Christ and each other unravel, they had constantly to recall the disciples and each other to fidelity to the Gospel and unity with one another. Thus, while Paul boasted of having seen the Risen Lord and being appointed an apostle by him, he said. “What matters in the end is that I preach what the apostles preach.”60 T H E C O U N C I L O F J E RUSA L E M The New Testament word κοινωνίᾳ was translated variously in the Vulgate,61 but commonly in the tradition as communio. Cum-unio means, of course,“one with”; being in communion with God or the apostles or the church thus means being one with them. But the term was rarely applied to the relationship between the apostles themselves. Even when Luke says the early Christians “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the κοινωνίᾳ,”62 it is about the other disciples. The clearest example of the idea of communion being applied to the relationship amongst the apostles and elders themselves is when Paul boasts to the Galatians that “when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of κοινωνίᾳ.”63 But whether it is between the apostles or other disciples, does communio require sameness or agreement or what?

Fraternity among the Apostles | 15

Our most perfect example of κοινωνίᾳ—of which all other communio is a pale reflection—is, of course, the Blessed Trinity, and there is no doubt the three persons of God are in perfect agreement; indeed, much of what we say of any one Person is true of all three. But they are not the same; some things can only be rightly said of one Person of God. In the analogous fellowship of Christians, the differences are even more pronounced. There were only a few to begin with, and today there are 2.4 billion, with various temperaments, experiences, cultures, and views. Though the majority of Christians are in full communion with the Catholic Church, around a billion are not (yet). Even those who are in full communion are of six different rites and twentyfour particular churches and include over 414,000 priests, 630,000 religious, and 1.35 billion other faithful. The formal principle of their unity is that each member of the faithful is (hopefully) in communion of faith and life with the others in their local church and their bishop. But there are over 3,000 dioceses, eparchies, and ecclesiastical jurisdictions,64 governed by 5,300 bishops and quasi-bishops, and the principle of their unity is that each is (hopefully) in communion with the others and with the pope. Whatever it means for these to be one, it cannot be that they all think or feel the same. Think Peter and Paul. Or Paul and James. Or Paul and anyone. . . . Though he brought people peace,65 Jesus predicted that his coming would also provoke division and be received by many as more of a sword than as concord.66 Even among his disciples there were squabbles. There were tensions with some of his relatives.67 James and John (or at least their mother) ambitioned for higher office, and this angered the other apostles; more than once they squabbled about their pecking order.68 Peter regularly talked over the others or impulsively jumped in ahead of them.69 On each occasion Jesus responded, whether with gentle instruction or firm rebuke. After Jesus’ arrest, Peter and John did not go into hiding with the others: they followed the trials, and John even stood by the cross.70 John’s Gospel has Thomas absent when the Risen Lord first appeared to the others and refusing to believe their wild reports when he rejoined them.71 And in the next chapter only

16 |

SOURCES

seven of the eleven are present for the barbecue by the Sea of Tiberias.72 So the apostles didn’t always stick together. That the New Testament writers had repeatedly to call their communities to abide peaceably and be united suggests that tension was an all-too-common reality amongst them.73 But without Jesus to correct them when they squabble, what are they to do? The meeting around 50 A.D., which came to be known as “the Council of Jerusalem,” records one of the ways they resolved disputes and brought about reconciliation.74 First the backstory. The early Christians long disputed whether the Torah and other Jewish regulations still applied to them—that had been an issue even in Jesus’ lifetime75—and especially whether these laws applied to Gentile converts. The canonical rigorists wanted the whole Law obeyed, down to last jot and tittle. The libertarians counted themselves free of the shackles of the Old Law. And there was everything in between. Behind this were questions of identity: are we a sect of Jews or something new? Are we to be a missionary church sent to all the world, or more about renewing Israel from within? Who was right, and who would decide? Far from being a purely theoretical question, this dispute regularly disrupted the early Christian communities. The Judaizers stirred up those Jews providing hospitality to the Gentile converts to Christianity, suggesting only Jews were the real deal.76 Meanwhile, the enthusiasts for the mission to the Gentiles talked as if these converts were at least as good as the Jewish-Christians, if not more enthusiastic, and kept pushing the envelope.77 Another part of the backstory: five chapters earlier in Acts, Peter had his vision in Joppa that no person is profane or food unclean and concluded “that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”78 Peter had pronounced on the matter; there was, you might say, the beginnings of a magisterium on the question already. What’s more, for all the strength of opinion and absolutist talk, no one was sure where to draw the line. Peter, we know, was an early convert to relaxing the kosher laws and the rest for the Gentiles, but to Paul’s annoyance he sometimes caved in to James’s party, and so Paul “opposed him to his face as self-condemned.”79

Fraternity among the Apostles | 17

Paul’s was a clear black-and-white answer—no more circumcision, at least for Gentile Christians—and yet he imposed it on the young bishop Timothy to keep the peace and see-sawed on whether or not one should eat idol meat.80 James was the most stubborn of all, though in the opposite direction, yet he would ultimately agree that it is enough for the Gentile-Christians to keep just a bit kosher. . . . But back to the Council. After stirrers came from Jerusalem to Antioch demanding that the Gentile-Christians be circumcised, Luke rather coyly says there was οὐκ ὀλίγης—“no small” dissension and debate.81 In fact the Antiochian Church was in uproar, in danger of splitting in two! So, Paul and Barnabas were delegated to go to Jerusalem for clarification. They cleverly talked up the Gentile-Christians everywhere they passed along the way, so news of a groundswell of support for their view preceded them as they approached Jerusalem. On arrival they were welcomed by the apostles and elders, who had decided to meet in Council to hear the different views and settle the matter. There were several speeches—one suspects long and impassioned speeches—and there was “much debate.” The Pharisees’ party spoke for abiding by the Torah. Peter, Barnabas, and Paul all argued for not placing any unnecessary burden on the Gentile-Christians. Titus and John spoke also.82 James then proposed a compromise that allowed everyone to keep face but put at least some brakes on Paul. A consensus was achieved and a decree issued: the first canon law. The Gentile-Christians were to eschew all appearances of idolatry regarding meat sacrificed to idols and the promiscuity of the Anything Goes party; they were also to abstain from strangled meat and blood pudding—a bit like Friday abstinence83—and help the poor in Jerusalem financially.84 “Then it seemed good to the apostles and to the elders with all the church”85 to appoint legates with letters clarifying that the Judaizing stirrers did not speak for the church and to promulgate the decision of the apostles to the churches in Antioch and beyond. The decision, we are told, was received with great joy. Thus the Council of Jerusalem—with delegates, hearings, debate, consensus, an authoritative apostolic and Petrine decision,

18 |

SOURCES

and promulgation to the other churches—was one model of dispute resolution and preserving or restoring communio when it was under pressure in the early church. The letter accompanying the decree of the Council is an example of another. THE LET TERS TO THE CHURCHES The controversies over just how Jewish the Gentile-Christians had to be—and over faith, legalism, and lawlessness—bubbled along for some years and were the subject not just of Paul’s speeches but also of his letters.86 But these were not the only areas of contention. In the Pauline epistles we find intimations of division over questions such as: wisdom and authority in the Christian community; the problem of evil and purpose of suffering; the resurrection of Christ and of the faithful; orderly worship and abuses at the Eucharist; spiritual gifts; the necessity of love; marriage, divorce, and celibacy; sexual morality and associating with the immoral; relationships to civil authority and use of the civil courts; the place of women; arrogance and ambition; and church collections, money, and work.87 Paul deplores jealousy, querulousness, gossip and slander, factionalism, or anything or anyone that causes divisions in the community; he calls on his communities to be places of harmony, patience, forgiveness, and charity.88 Informed that there are factions named for Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself quarreling in Corinth, he writes:89 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree with one another and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and purpose. . . . Has Christ been divided? . . . Cephas, Paul, Apollos. . . . We are all God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.

He tells the Ephesians, “I implore you to lead a life worthy of your calling in all humility and gentleness, with patience and forbearance, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And he connects this communio to that of the persons of the Blessed Trinity: “For there is one body [the

Fraternity among the Apostles | 19

church], one Spirit calling you to one hope, one Lord [calling you to] one faith and baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all.” Why then all the diversity in the church? Paul goes on: But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift . . . that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers—equipping the saints for the work of ministry [and] for building up the body of Christ, until we are all united in the faith and knowledge of the Son of God [and] all mature according to the measure of the fullness of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine [and] people’s trickery.... But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together ... with each part working properly, promoting the body’s growth and building itself up in love.90

Church unity will come, on this account, by our hearing and speaking the truth in love, each fulfilling his or her assigned ministry, working together like the limbs and organs of a body. Paul mentions here obliquely the “tricksters” who offer the Ephesians new, immediately appealing doctrines.91 In Colossae some are captive of “a hollow and deceptive philosophy,” human traditions, and worldly forces.92 He warns the young bishop Timothy against those obsessed with “myths, speculations, empty talk, and endless arguments,” telling people with itching ears what they want to hear “rather than advancing God’s work, which is faith”; it seems there were “bloggers” even before the Internet! He suspects some of these “bloggers” are hypocritical liars, corruptly seeking financial gain, or serving demons.93 He warns the Romans: I urge you, brothers and sisters, to beware those who cause dissensions and offences, in opposition to the teaching that you have been taught. Best to avoid them, for such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own vanity, deceiving the simple-minded with their smooth talk and flattery.94

20 |

SOURCES

What’s the alternative, and how are we to attain it? Well, Paul tells the Ephesians, remember how you were once “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise?” Well, now you are “citizens with the saints and members of God’s household.” Christ brought you close—into communion by his Flesh and Blood—“breaking down the dividing wall” between us. So, the answer to fractured community is a return to Christ, a deeper conversion. For Christ, Paul says, is in the process of making a new humanity, “reconciling people to God in one body,” uniting them as “members of the household of God,” joining them together and building them into “a holy temple for the Lord.”95 Paul was by no means the only one of the apostles and elders to write letters to the churches about unity and division, communio and ex-communion,96 but these instances are enough to give us the idea of how such letters served the cause of Christian fraternity. CONCLUSION Some final thoughts, then, with some take-aways regarding fraternity and communio amongst the apostles. The brotherhood of the apostles was founded upon a common relationship to Christ—a common call, response, and experiences—and their communion built upon this natural and spiritual connection. They received the teaching and signs of Jesus, the one Bread and Cup, and their postresurrection faith through the gift of the Spirit. They were prayed for by Jesus and graced by God, and they knew it. After the ascension they remained “at one” with Christ and each other in their spiritual experiences, prayer, worship, preaching, healings, shepherding, and suffering. Peter led the apostles as they led the church, and elders were appointed to share in their tasks. There were tensions—some serious—and resolutions—some successful. Councils and pastoral letters were two models of dispute resolution and preserving or restoring communio when it was under pressure in the early church. Communion, it turned out, was not something achieved once and for all by Christ’s saving death, nor by the encounter with him in word and sacrament. It is some-

Fraternity among the Apostles | 21

thing that must constantly to be worked at. Vigilance is required regarding people and things that can disturb the equanimity of the community. More positively, communion will be strengthened by cultivating certain virtues and conforming ourselves to Christ; by each person fulfilling one’s proper role within the church, understood as an organic or architectural whole; and by hearing and speaking the truth in love. The apostles lived two millennia ago and can sometimes seem distant, yet we still recite their names in the Roman Canon, read their stories in the Gospels, and have their successors, the bishops, as relics or icons of their presence among us. If the last of the apostles, John, died in 100 A.D. but baptized a baby not long before his death, if that baby grew up to do the same, and so on, the line between John and any of today’s bishops would be only twenty people long. If we consider the succession of episcopal ordinations, it is a longer line, but still the apostles are not so far away. We pray they will accompany us and teach us something of the mystery of their fraternity and communion. Holy Apostles Peter and Paul: pray for us. Andrew, James, and John: pray for us. Holy Apostles Thomas, James, Phillip, and Bartholomew: pray for us. Matthew, Simon, and Jude: pray for us.

2

Episcopal Fraternity and Communio in the Tradition E P I S C O PA L C O M M U N I O N I N T H E P O S T- A P O S T O L I C P E R I O D

A

s a disciple of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch (early second century) was a link to the apostolic generation, and, although there were various leadership structures in the early centuries, it is clear that by early in the second century these were crystallizing along the Ignatian lines of bishop, presbyter, and deacon.1 Already he talks of the bishop in each local church as representing Christ, with his council of presbyters as the apostles and elders, and the deacons serving, all three ranks owed the loyalty of their flock, and the laity and pastors in communion with each other as the καθολικός (universal, whole church).2 Sent from Antioch to Rome for trial and execution, he visited various congregations along the way or wrote to them from a distance, stressing the importance of the apostolic tradition, of the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” and “medicine of immortality,” and of church order and concord.3 Like the apostolic writers before him, he warned against those promoting “strange doctrines and antiquated fables,” those he called “tares” and “schism makers.”4 Ignatius thought that bishops must resolve disputes and remind the faithful that there is one church and one Eucharist, just as there is one Christ whose body the church and Eucharist are, one altar around which the church gathers to offer that Eucharist, one bishop who presides over both with his presbytery and deacons. This emphasis of the post-apostolic generation on the unity of the church put an extra responsibility upon the bishops to ensure both the cohesion of their particular church and cohesion between the churches.5 Throughout the patristic period, this was achieved 23

24 |

SOURCES

by letters, visitations, synods, participation in elections, ordinations and funerals of neighboring bishops, and declarations of communion or excommunication.6 Already there was developing “an inextricable link between the ekklesia (whose being was communion), the bishop (who was the guarantor of communion) and the Eucharist (which was the sacrament of communion)”; likewise an inextricable link between the church (whose being is apostolic), the bishop (whose succession and teaching guarantee this), and the apostolic tradition (the standard of the church’s faith).7 In the same generation as Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr (c. 100– c. 165) was teaching that the Logos ruled the cosmos rationally and harmoniously through koinonia, the participation of the created in the creator.8 Through the incarnation, redemption, and especially the Eucharist, the faithful participate in a very particular way in the life of the Triune God and his church.9 “We call this food Eucharist,” he said, “and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught.”10 To stop believing and professing what Christ and the apostles taught, or to stop living as Christ and the apostles lived, is to break communion. By the time of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 202) later in the second century, the bishop’s role as guarantor of the apostolic faith featured even more than his role as president of the Eucharist. Bishops received the charisma veritatis certum (assured charism of the truth) by virtue of apostolic succession and ensured that each church enjoyed koinonia in truth and life with each others’ churches and even with Christians past:11 Anyone who wishes to discern the truth may see in every church in the whole world the apostolic tradition clear and manifest. We can enumerate those who were appointed as bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors to our own day.12

Thus, he says that what the church offers up to the Lord are “the things that are his own, consistently preaching our koinonia and union.”13

Episcopal Fraternity in the Traditions | 25

In the century that followed these apostolic fathers, the oldest and largest churches and their bishops came to play a major role in leading whole regions with multiple dioceses and maintaining bonds between those regions. The Church of Rome and its “pope” (father bishop) claimed a certain precedence and broad responsibility for the whole church’s unity and orthodoxy. As the church grew, priest-presbyters took responsibility for unifying and leading parishes. Bishops united and led their dioceses by, among other things, conducting regular conferences for their clergy, and metropolitans united their regions by, amongst other things, arranging regional synods. Imperial authorities after Constantine and church authorities after Nicaea favored the conduct of regular provincial and regional councils. Greater or “ecumenical” councils were of particular importance for clarifying doctrine and legislating for the whole church.14 To summarize: There are many more authors and texts we could examine from the post-apostolic generations. Here it must suffice that three of the most influential authors of the period looked to the evolving office of bishop, conforming himself to Christ under the grace of the Holy Spirit, to ensure the authenticity of what was passed on in each church and the unity between them. This unity was not based solely on maintaining this order, but rather required the fidelity of the Christian people and their leaders to Christ. Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 253) said,“Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.”15 This unity was ultimately a divine gift, as St. Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215 AD) observed: “What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her ‘Church.’”16 Nevertheless, without the ministry of bishops, a church could not be one, holy, catholic, or apostolic. And while they are conduits of the apostolic tradition and presidents of the Eucharist, the bishops are themselves subject to that tradition and recipients of that grace as they try to strengthen communio among themselves, their churches, and their God.

26 |

SOURCES

E P I S C O PA L C O M M U N I O N I N S T. J O H N C H RY S O S T O M The high patristic period was undoubtedly a time of great figures in the church, “heroes” of the faith, now honored with the title of church “fathers” or “doctors.” But they were, first, patriarchs or metropolitans of particular churches. In Augustine’s time, these figures were so prominent that they were rather like “mini-popes” not just of their dioceses, but of whole regions, and it was with them that other bishops or churches would normally speak of being in communion, rather than with the college of bishops or the pope of Rome. Yet it was also a time when the boundaries between the theological and the political were blurred, during which doctrinal debates excited considerable passion even among the secular authorities, let alone bishops and theologians. Our debates might be different, but the passions excited and the effects both on church unity and relationships with the state might sound familiar. The result was all too often radical un-communion. Let me give an example. John of Constantinople (c. 347–407) was archbishop of Constantinople for six years from 397 and is remembered for his influence upon the Divine Liturgy, his efforts to bring about reconciliation between the sees of Constantinople, Antioch, and Rome, and above all as a theological writer and preacher-bishop. For the quality, quantity, and sheer eloquence of his preaching and writing he was nicknamed Χρυσόστομος (the golden-mouthed). Explaining his initial reluctance about his vocation, Chrysostom wrote in On the Priesthood (c. 390) about the naked ambition of many of the bishops of his day and argued that unless they are able to conquer this in themselves they would be of little use in addressing the vices of their clergy and faithful.17 Building on the teachings of his predecessor Gregory Nazianzen (about whom more in “Concluding Reflections,” he taught that bishops must take a strongly spiritual and sacramental approach rather than becoming functionaries who decide everything pragmatically.18 They must make preaching and teaching their priority and so give much more attention to “the great toil” of contemplative preparation and congregation-focused delivery of homilies,

Episcopal Fraternity in the Tradition | 27

spiritual conferences, and pastoral letters.19 Above all, they must cultivate virtues that combat internal vices and forbear external opposition.20 Given how his own life panned out, it is interesting that John made a clear connection between κοινωνίᾳ and ἐκκλησία, writing that “the Church’s name Èκκλησία is not a name of separation but of unity and concord.”21 Radical disunity within the church breaches communion, not just with or between the bishops, but with God and between the faithful, and is ecclesially self-destructive. Chrysostom engaged in the great Christological and ecclesiological disputes of the day,22 but also in παραίνεσις (moral exhortation) of his clergy and flock. He denounced abuses of wealth and power, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Such straight talking does not always win friends and influence people: it gained John the antipathy of Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress Aelia Eudoxia. In 403 Theophilus and his allies, including his nephew Cyril (about whom more later), held a synod to depose John and exile him. Called back by the faithful, Chrysostom continued to preach against corruption in church and state, but this time also against a silver statue of the empress that had been provocatively erected outside the cathedral of Hagia Sophia. John now compared Eudoxia unflatteringly to Herodias in the passion of John the Baptist. He was banished again, this time to Armenia, and was the subject of a demonization campaign by fellow bishops.23 Clearly, not all was hunky-dory regarding episcopal fraternity and communio at that time, at least in the East! John now looked westward for assistance, specifically to the bishops of Rome, Milan, and Aquileia. Pope Innocent I sent a delegation of prelates to negotiate a peace and the return of the archbishop, but they too were rebuffed. Where synods, visitations, and diplomacy failed, pastoral letters remained a crucial vehicle of episcopal authority.24 Because John’s letters continued to exercise influence upon the people of Constantinople and beyond, his enemies now banished him even further away, this time to Georgia, and he died in exile. Apart from his writings on episcopacy and priesthood, John’s corpus includes many reflections upon communio with God and

28 |

SOURCES

between the faithful. If the church makes the Eucharist, it is because the Eucharist first makes the church;25 division in one plays out in division in the other.26 In the Divine Liturgy named after him, the faithful pray to this day,“O Son of God, bring me into communion today in your mystical supper. I shall not kiss you with a Judas kiss, but like the good thief I cry, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’”27 E P I S C O PA L C O M M U N I O N I N S T. C Y R I L O F A L E X A N D R I A Theophilus was not the first or last patriarch to be out of communion with Constantinople. He was succeeded by his nephew Cyril (c. 376–c. 444; patriarch 412–44), admired by some as Pillar of Faith, Seal of the Fathers, and Doctor of the Church, but deplored by others as Proud Pharaoh, Monster Heretic, and Church Destroyer. If you think the modern media are harsh, just look at what the Nestorians said about Cyril. But he could give as good as he got. A major contributor to the ongoing trinitarian, Christological, and Mariological controversies,28 he wrote furious tracts with accompanying anathemata against the “patriarchs” Nestorius of Constantinople and John of Antioch.29 The Council of Ephesus convened in 431 to settle these matters, but with Cyril presiding it was hardly neutral ground: Cyril excluded Patriarch John (supposedly for arriving late, when Cyril had in fact opened early) and then, as his uncle had done with respect to Chrysostom, saw to Nestorius’s deposition. It was not only with fellow bishops that Cyril tussled: he is said to have inflamed the Christian crowd in Alexandria against the pagan philosophers including Hypatia, against the long-standing Jewish community, and against the Novationists and Nestorians. Cyril was no reconciler!30 He did, however, write some theologically important works that would ultimately serve church unity. His pneumatology provided an alternative to the standard Alexandrian lexicon of θέωσις or θέωποίησις (deification or divinization) to explain the relationship between the Christian and God: he used words such as χάρις (grace), μέθεξις (participation), and κοινωνία (communion).31 For Cyril “the grace of God is actualized in the work of the Holy Spirit,

Episcopal Fraternity in the Tradition | 29

who invites the faithful to participate in communion with the divine life.”32 The σύναξις (meeting) of God and man in the incarnation and redemption, and in baptism and the Eucharist, make for a certain kinship between Christ and the Christian soul.33 By analogy, the bishops enjoy a kind of kinship through their ordination, meetings, concelebrations, and joint actions, especially their teaching in common, which kinship is, by the grace of Christ, raised to spiritual communion. We could give many more examples of the teachings, unity, and tensions of the fathers and the other bishops in their era. The subsequent fifth and sixth centuries were also riven by religious controversy that the popes, the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Ephesus II (449, not recognized as ecumenical), Chalcedon (451), and Constantinople II (553), and more local synods sought but failed to settle.34 Indeed, in those episcopal gatherings it was not uncommon for the fathers to get physical in their debates, calling out, waving fists, pulling each other’s beards, cursing, and excommunicating, even stirring up rioters and vigilantes. Bishops’ conferences today are rather tame by comparison! One of Cyril’s successors, Proterius, elected by the Council of Chalcedon to replace the deposed patriarch Dioscorus, was turned upon in 457 by a mob led by a rival patriarch, put to the sword in the baptistery, and his corpse dragged through the city streets, dismembered, and burned. See how these Christians love each other! Yet, paradoxically, many of those fiery bishops were also great pastors who left a rich theological legacy. We could no doubt enrich our understanding of how episcopal fraternity and communion played out in the first millennium of the church by considering the teaching and example of other greats such as St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great, but I move on now to the second millennium.35 S T. A L B E R T T H E G R E AT ON THE LIFE OF BISHOPS Albertus Magnus (ca. 1200–1280), the Dominican philosophertheologian, doctor of the church and patron saint of scientists, was a rare man. Not only had he possibly the most encyclopedic mind

30 |

SOURCES

in history, but unlike his protégé, St. Thomas Aquinas, and most other academics and friars, he had also proved himself a good administrator as local prior, regional provincial, and papal legate. In 1260, Pope Alexander IV named him bishop of Ratisbon— modern day Regensburg—a diocese in need of major reform. The Dominicans at that time were resistant to their own becoming bishops. Having been established only a generation before, they were already successfully attracting many seminarians, clerics, academics, congregants, and benefactors to themselves, to the great annoyance of many diocesan and monastic authorities. One way dioceses had of getting their own back on the order was to name its more illustrious members as bishops, thereby recovering them for the local church.36 When the master of the Dominicans, Humbert of Romans, heard that Albert had been named for Regensburg, he wrote to him imploring him to decline the papal mandate. “I would rather you were dead than a bishop,” Blessed Humbert said. To lose him would be a great loss for the Order and encourage further poaching.“Why ruin your reputation and that of the Order by letting yourself be taken away from poverty and preaching?” Humbert continued. “However troublesome you find the brethren, don’t imagine things will be better once you have the secular clergy and powers to deal with. . . . Better to lie in a coffin than sit in a bishop’s chair!”37 Albert had previously resisted, but this time he did as the pope asked. Then, having achieved the desired reforms in record time, he persuaded the next pope, Urban IV, to allow him to resign his diocese and return to his research and teaching—in exchange for agreeing to preach the Eighth Crusade in the German-speaking lands. Following the authorities in Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Albert did not consider the episcopacy to be a sacramental order distinct from the priesthood, and so laying down the burden of that office was merely renouncing a jurisdiction. For Albert, sacramental orders were differentiated on the basis of their relations to the Eucharistic action: while deacons assist at the altar, priests consecrate the bread and wine; but bishops are no different to priests in this respect. Nonetheless, Albert thought that episcopal consecration confers a unique dignity upon the ordained, not with

Episcopal Fraternity in the Tradition | 31

respect to the Eucharistic body but with respect to the ecclesial body: only bishops can be bearers of “the keys” for ordaining, confirming, consecrating chrism, governing, teaching definitively, and excommunicating. As that dignity was not lost even in retirement, Albert himself continued to enjoy some of his episcopal perks! Albert applied a neo-Platonist conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy to holy orders.38 Coming after and participating in the divine hierarchy of the Blessed Trinity are the ranks of angels; coming after but intersecting with the lowest rank of angels are the bishops—themselves ranked pope, patriarchs, and cardinals, archbishops and bishops—who purge, illuminate, and sanctify the people of God; then come the priests and deacons who share to some degree in this.39 As Christ is the pinnacle of both the angelic and ecclesiastical hierarchies, illuminating all, he is the preeminent model for bishops. The more bishops share in Christ’s truth and love and transmit that to their subjects, Albert thought, the less they would have to rely upon issuing orders.40 Here we get a hint of Albert’s thinking about fraternity and communio amongst the bishops: if they are to perform their ecclesial task, they must demonstrate a common passion for divine truth and a common attachment to Christ, each other, and their subjects. A deficit of humility, of passion for truth, or of love for Christ or the church or an excess of love of power or luxury or self should—on Bishop Albert’s account—be bars to episcopal ministry. Sadly, however, hierarchs all the way up to pope can be corrupt or domineering, Albert said, and so fail to share the divine light their people need from them.41 So the church should choose carefully! AQ U I NA S O N I M PE R F E CT M E N I N A S TAT E O F P E R F E C T I O N Albert’s pupil Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1224–74) was more resistant to appointment as a bishop and would, in any case, have been a disaster in such a role: the order never even appointed him as a local superior, as his gifts lay elsewhere. In this he was very different from his ecclesiastical twin, St. Bonaventure, who also wrote on the episcopate but from experience.42 But St. Thomas remains our prin-

32 |

SOURCES

cipal source for the medieval theology of the episcopate, as on so many other things. Sometimes Aquinas is accused of having too low a theology of the episcopate. Like Peter Lombard, Albert, and Bonaventure, he resisted the idea that there were degrees of priesthood; he thought bishops were essentially priests with extra jurisdiction; and so episcopal consecration was no sacrament.43 He was wrong about that, but it was not until the Second Vatican Council that the matter was finally settled dogmatically. In one respect, however, he did offer a higher theology of the episcopate than the other medieval masters: he argued that episcopacy was a status perfectionis (a state of perfection).44 For many centuries it had been customary to rate virginity (and thus religious life) as the highest state because it was thought to be the most demanding and graced state of life, akin to martyrdom. But now Aquinas claimed that just as consecrated virginity was the highest state of life for a lay person, so was episcopacy highest for a cleric. (What that means for someone who is both a religious and a bishop was not clear: when I was elected bishop, some of my brethren disputed whether the one state of perfection added to, subtracted from, multiplied, or divided the other; the consensus was that a religious being elevated to the episcopate would subtract one state of perfection from the other, with the net result being zero!) Thomas’s talk of states of perfection is strange to the modern ear. After all, the Second Vatican Council taught that all Christians are called to holiness or perfect charity; rather than being the preserve of religious professionals, intentional discipleship is the proper goal of every member of the faithful.45 After the child sexual abuse crisis in the church, we are more aware than ever of just how imperfect many bishops, priests, and religious have been, and how unhealthy was the culture that romanticized them and permitted, even facilitated, some gross failings. Talk of the church as “a perfect society” and of its officeholders as being in a “state of perfection” might be thought to risk continuing such corruption; certainly, any such talk must be stamped, “Handle with care.” Aquinas was not unaware of the temptations of clericalism: he emphatically criticizes the avarice, ambition, and seipsos amantes

Episcopal Fraternity in the Tradition | 33

(narcissism) of some bishops and clergy.46 Some are “totally lacking in charity and grace”; they are mali praelati or mali religiosi! Meanwhile, many diocesan priests and unconsecrated laypeople make swifter progress toward perfection in charity.47 If bishops and religious are offered great opportunities for spiritual excellence, then their failures to achieve such excellence are all the more damning; indeed, St. Thomas insists, they will be held more accountable for the same sin than a priest or layperson will be.48 What’s more, whereas ordinary people will only have to account for their own deeds at the judgment, Thomas thought prelates must also give an account of the deeds of their flock.49 Rather than making bishops or religious smug, knowing that theirs is a state of perfection should therefore humble them with the appreciation that God has set the already high bar for Christians even higher for them: “Of everyone to whom much is given much will be expected.”50 Rather than thinking themselves perfect already, they must strive to be more godlike. Of course, God never asks the impossible of us: if he makes great demands, he offers even greater graces to enable us to fulfill them. But as Dante and Fra Angelico portray in their poetry and painting, for all their graces of office, there are many wearing the miter, tonsure, or veil—if little else—in the cauldrons of hell! In De perfectione spiritualis vitæ and in the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argued that religious consecration and episcopal consecration are not only states of perfection but the most perfect states of life.51 I won’t rehearse the metaphysics behind this. Suffice it here to say that he thought all people, whatever their state in life, can advance in the spiritual life from beginners, to the proficient, to the perfect, as they overcome sinful inclinations and vices and progress in the life of grace and virtue.52 But some are solemnly consecrated to such perfection,“binding themselves in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection”:53 these are the bishops and religious.54 Being bound to a particular flock even more inseparably than a parish priest, episcopal consecration requires a bishop to be “a good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep,”55 and not to renounce that role except for the gravest of reasons.56 But how is a less-than-perfect bishop to advance toward fulfilling his potential?

34 |

SOURCES

In The Ideal Bishop, Michael Sirilla recently reviewed all of Aquinas’s texts bearing upon the episcopate, and especially his lectures on the Pastoral Epistles. He concludes that Aquinas thought episcopacy a state wherein the prelate ought to enjoy profound, mystical intimacy with Christ and to lead others to that same intimacy or perfection. In so doing, the bishop secures his own salvation and that of his flock. As “God’s vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments,” bishops are given their particular sharing in Christ’s triple munus of teaching, governing, and sanctifying.57 But the efficacy of a bishop’s ministry depends not so much on his office and its associated charism as on his having a holy and virtuous heart and a well-informed mind.58 There are many dimensions to the holiness of the bishop on Aquinas’s account. Christ chose simple rather than exceptional men as his apostles,59 and he graced and formed them for spiritual greatness—that is, for intimacy with him and for being fishers of men.60 They had to let go of family, wealth, security, and public regard in order to give themselves completely to Christ and his mission for them.61 The graces that they received included wisdom in instructing people in faith and prudence in directing their lives to holiness.62 As their successors, the bishops seek similar graces: to be holy, virtuous, wise, humble, mild, and dedicated to their flock.63 They must be faithful, fearless, assiduous, patient, and solicitous for their flock like the martyrs.64 Thomas is not naïve about all this: when Paul wishes “grace, mercy, and peace” upon Timothy, Peter Lombard says bishops only need “mercy” in the sense of the power to dispense mercy on God’s behalf; Thomas, however, thinks they need it because they are themselves sinful members of Christ’s faithful, in need of sanctifying grace, who must minister that grace and mercy to others, sinner to sinner.65 Eternal life is the true end of their office, not as something guaranteed but as something strived for.66 So where professors are chosen for their knowledge, bishops should be chosen for their caritas excellens (excelling charity).67 They must be able to instruct, defend, and govern the church lovingly and peacefully. Though our categories of communio, collegiality, and synodality do not feature in St. Thomas’s treatment of the apostles and their

Episcopal Fraternity in the Tradition | 35

successors, he does reflect on the charity, fellowship, or fraternity proper to them and their successors.68 In the De Justitia, for instance, he observes that because of “the unity of human fellowship, whereby one man is bound to be solicitous for another lest he sin,” we can feel contaminated by another person’s failing, as “the other apostles were distressed about the sin of Judas ... in commendation of unity.”69 In his Lectures on 1 Timothy Aquinas grounds the bishop’s charism of maintaining ecclesial communion in his own grace of conversion and consequent witness to reconciliation.70 Noel Molloy, in his study of “Hierarchy and Holiness,” concludes that, for Thomas, fraternal charity constitutes the very essence of episcopacy: the episcopal office places the bishop in a state of life that binds him in charity to procure for his neighbors the greatest of all goods: eternal life.71 Sirilla notes: Because the bishop is bound by his office to perfect others in charity . . . he himself ought to have extraordinary fraternal charity. . . . The excelling love he has (or ought to have) for God and his neighbors impels the bishop to work tirelessly so that his subordinates may acquire the supernatural love of God above all else.72

CONCLUSION What might we learn from these various snapshots through history bearing upon episcopal fraternity and communio? The early Christians looked to the bishops as alteri Christi and successors of the apostles to unite them in truth and love. To do this the bishops must be in communion with God, united amongst themselves, and faithful to the tradition. But in the patristic period, radical uncommunion was all too often more in evidence. St. John Chrysostom sought in vain to reform the bishops and clergy, arguing that they must be spiritual fathers and sacramental grace-bringers more than secular lords in sacred dress, and that would require the hard slog of contemplation and preaching. Amidst a life of theological warfare, St. Cyril taught us about grace, participation, and communion, the Holy Spirit creating a kinship between Christians, between Christians and God, and even between bishops. In their case it

36 |

SOURCES

comes through their common ordination, meetings, concelebrations, and actions, but especially their teaching in common. In the medieval period many denied that the bishops were anything special, but St. Albert thought episcopal consecration confers a unique dignity not with respect to the Eucharistic body, but with respect to the ecclesial body. If they are to perform their ecclesial task, bishops must demonstrate a common passion for divine truth and a common affection for Christ, each other, and their subjects. St. Thomas concludes our tour of the tradition until our examination of our own times in chapter 3. Bishops are paradoxes, according to Aquinas, imperfect men called to perfection. They can reach spiritual heights or fall to great depths. This should be humbling and drive them to lean on God and their brother bishops for support. They must help each other cultivate a holy heart, a virtuous will, and an informed mind. Above all, they need fraternal charity and well-practiced love. And such love begins at home—that is, with their brothers in the episcopate. In chapter 3 we will see what the Second Vatican Council and the contemporary magisterium have made of all that. But first we ask: Holy martyrs Ignatius and Justin, pray for us; Holy elders Clement and Irenaeus, pray for us; Holy bishops Chrysostom and Cyril, pray for us; Holy doctors Bonaventure, Albert, and Thomas, pray for us; With the apostles and elders before the throne of the Lamb intercede for us, that our bishops might fulfill their high calling and be united in God’s love. Amen.

3

Vatican II on Collegiality and Pope Francis on Synodality

FIGURE 3-1. Christ flanked by the Apostles Peter, Paul, and Andrew and Saint Luke. Credit: Apse mosaic of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (1220)—Roma, Italy. Wikimedia Commons, Photo by Alberto Fernandez Fernandez. Creative Commons Generic License 3.0.

I

n his opening address at the Second Session of the Second Vatican Council, the newly elected Pope Paul VI referenced the great image of the Pantocrator in the apse of the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, which was just about all that survived of the older basilica that was razed in the great fire of 1823.1 Made in 1220 by artists who had worked on St. Mark’s in Venice, the mosaic has an immense figure of Christ presiding over and blessing the assembly. This scene was reflected in the assembly of bishops in St. Peter’s, the pope observed, and Christ’s message in the Gospel book 37

38 |

SOURCES

he carries was intended for them: “Come, you blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”2 The paradisal nature of that kingdom is suggested in the surrounding flora and fauna. To his left are the apostles Peter and Andrew; to his right are Paul, the pontiff’s name-saint over whose tomb the basilica is built, and Luke, Paul’s biographer, whom he said was the only one who stayed with him to the end.3 Celebrating Christ’s true nature, Jesus blesses in the Greek fashion with his ring finger joined to his thumb, the three standing fingers pointing to the Trinity, and the two joined fingers suggesting his two natures. St. Peter holds a scroll with his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”; St. Paul’s says, “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”4 In the band below, the apostles surround a jeweled cross and other symbols of the passion. On the cusp between the two is a comically small depiction of the then pope, Honorius III (1216– 27), kissing Christ’s foot. By drawing attention to the tiny prostrate Honorius, St. Paul VI stressed that the true actor of the Council would not be the pope, the prelates, the experts, or even the documents themselves, but rather Christ the Incarnate Word. Only if they put Christ at the center and his successors in communion around him would the church be led in the right direction. In this chapter I seek to outline and synthesize some developments in the church’s understanding of episcopal fraternity from the Second Vatican Council onward, especially through the articulation of the concepts of communio and collegiality in the documents of the Council and the concept of synodality in the pontificate of Pope Francis. T H E C H U RC H A S SAC R A M E N T Perhaps the most provocative self-description of the church provided by the Second Vatican Council was the idea of the church as sacrament found in several of the documents.5 Thus the Council fathers said: “The wondrous sacrament of the Church” came forth from Christ’s side on the cross6

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 39

the church is “the universal sacrament of salvation,” “simultaneously manifesting and exercising the mystery of God’s love,” “a sign and instrument both of intimate union with God and of the unity of the whole human race”7 those who by faith see Jesus as the author of salvation are established as the church “so that, for each and all, it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity”8 but the faithful “are united and ordered under their bishops,” and it is the great commission given to the apostles and their successors that founds the mission to take the sacrament of the church to all humanity.9

This sacramental understanding of the church had precedent in St. Augustine and other church fathers,10 but it would be crucial for the conciliar and post-conciliar recovery of another patristic self-understanding: that of the church as koinonia-communio.11 We might think of the transcendent grace of the Mystical Body of Christ as mediated by the earthly people of God to the rest of humanity, just as the grace of baptism is mediated by water and that of the Eucharist by bread and wine. It is for the bishops and their clergy to speak Christ’s words to “inform” that “matter” and effect that grace. Sourced from the eternal love of the Trinity, yet also on pilgrimage to the heavenly Jerusalem, the single reality of the church might thus be considered from two different vantage points, the vertical and the horizontal.12 As Pope Benedict XVI counseled, through understanding the church as sacrament we insulate ourselves from reductionist understandings of the church and the episcopacy after the fashions of secular corporate or bureaucratic thinking.13 So, too, Pope Francis, warning against conceptions of synodality that amount to parliamentary or opinion poll thinking, recalls that “being a synodal Church means being a Church that is the sacrament of Christ’s promise that the Spirit will always be with us.”14 To be found in St. Petersburg, Florida—not Russia—is Salvador Dali’s painting The Ecumenical Council. Painted in 1960–62, just before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, it celebrated Dali’s hope for renewed religious leadership after the world wars and dictatorships and the “breath of fresh air” that was “Good Pope

40 |

SOURCES

FIGURE 3-2. The Ecumenical Council. Salvador Dalí, 1960. Oil on canvas. Collection of The Dalí Museum, St. Petersburg, FL (USA); Gift of A. Reynolds & Eleanor Morse. United States © Salvador Dalí Museum, Inc. St. Petersburg, FL 2022 / Worldwide ©Salvador Dalí. Fundació GalaSalvador Dalí (Artists Rights Society), 2022; Photo © Doug Sperling and David Deranian, 2021.

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 41

John.” At the top of the painting we see, in a niche of St. Peter’s Basilica, God the Father rather unusually depicted as an eternal youth, extending his arm out to creation, his face obscured. Below him is Christ holding his cross and the Holy Spirit as a dove floating above the Virgin Annunciate, who here is also the church. We see crowds of bishops in prayer, conversation, and solemn assembly. Dali includes his wife and himself in the work, for the council fathers brought “the joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties of the people of this age” with them.15 The bishops are united by the common faith and endeavor at the Second Vatican Council as they were at Nicaea and many gatherings since; but they are there to reflect, among other things, on the nature of the church as sacrament and their own role and relationships with it. LUMEN GENTIUM ON COLLEGIALIT Y If the concept of the church as sacrament provoked controversy as well as fruitful new thinking after the Council, so too did the concept of collegiality, also developed in Lumen gentium. Though linguistically novel, the concept had some ancestry in previous councils and also, as Avery Dulles noted, in the early church fathers.16 Chapter III of the constitution attends to the church’s hierarchy.17 It was Christ himself who willed that the apostles and their successors the bishops shepherd his church until the end of time, and he who gave them the wherewithal to accomplish their mission.18 But Christ did not simply appoint them as gifted individuals. “He formed these apostles after the manner of a college or stable group, over which he placed Peter,” the Council fathers said. Though each bishop is granted a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit for sanctifying, teaching, and governing, yet he receives these graces through sacramental consecration by the other bishops and exercises them “in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.”19 Episcopal collegiality is here firmly grounded in the calling, company, formation, and mission of the Twelve found in the Gospels. Rather than being an optional association of like-minded or like-missioned ministers, the college of bishops is intrinsic to episcopacy; rather than being simply the sum

42 |

SOURCES

of individual bishops and their functions, it is something chronologically and ontologically prior to each bishop, and by consecration he is incorporated into it.20 This helps explain how curial bishops, nuncios, auxiliary bishops, and emeriti—though lacking regional jurisdiction—can share in the responsibilities of the bishop of Rome and the other bishops for the whole church, and why the Directory for Bishops and Code of Canon Law direct ordinaries to have solicitude for those beyond their diocesan boundaries.21 In paragraphs 22 and 23 of Lumen gentium we get the fullest magisterial treatment of episcopal collegiality up to that time. The bishops are “joined together” like the apostles, constituting one apostolic college. The unity of the churches and of the faithful within them was “by very ancient practice” established by the communion of their bishops with each other and the pope “in a bond of unity, charity, and peace.” Every bishop,“as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church.” Hence bishops together engage in promoting and safeguarding the unity of faith and common discipline of the Church, have a particular concern for other parts of the church that are poor or suffering, supply priests and resources for the missions, take part in episcopal meetings and commissions, coalesce into geographic and ritual churches, and promote an understanding of the church that is more than local.22 Seeking to balance the universal jurisdiction of the pope with the local jurisdiction of the bishops and their various jurisdictions with their joint solicitude for the whole church, the Council pointed out that the collegiate action of the bishops is always exercised in communion with the Roman pontiff.23 The bishops also engage with the pope through ad limina meetings, membership of pontifical dicasteries, involvement in consultations by the pope, and promotion of his teachings, events, and appeals, collaboration with his nuncios, and so on. “Without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a college.”24 In the delightful 2002 Canadian-American romantic comedy My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the mother, Maria Portokalas (played by

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 43

Lainie Kazan), explains to the bride-to-be Toula (played by Nia Vardalos), “Let me tell you something Toula: the man is the head [of the family], but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.”25 While the bishops may not quite turn the papal head “any way they want,” they do connect the papal head to the body of the faithful; and just as a head upon a stiff and uncooperative neck has trouble turning to see and communicate, so both head and neck are needed for the healthy functioning of the church.26 Pivotal to all of this is the role of the Holy Spirit, who, like the soul of the body of the church, “supports its organic structure and harmony.”27 The insistence on the model of Peter and the Twelve, of continuing responsibility for the apostolic tradition and the unity of the church, and of the solicitude of each bishop for all, marks out a very different “order” and mission for the church from that of a secular government.28 A particular difference is that the relationship of the bishops as brothers, with a common love for the Lord and solicitude for the church, should be one of fraternal charity, something no one expects of politicians or business leaders! In his teaching on synodality, Pope Francis has built on the conciliar aspiration to collegiality, which he thinks has been only partially realized in the national and regional bishops’ conferences and international synods, and which prompts him to consider some decentralization of church governance and some learnings for the exercise of the Petrine and episcopal ministries from the synodal traditions of the Oriental churches.29 COMMUNIO AFTER THE COUNCIL While the church-as-sacrament and the bishops-as-college were somewhat original ecclesiological ideas at Vatican II, it was the church-as-communio that was the big hit. In the final report of the 1985 Synod of Bishops, the fathers noted that: The ecclesiology of communion is the central and fundamental idea of the Council’s documents. Koinonia-communio, founded on the Sacred Scripture, has been held in great honor in the

44 |

SOURCES

early Church and in the Oriental Churches to this day. Thus, much was done by the Second Vatican Council so that the Church-as-communion might be more clearly understood and concretely applied to life.30

Sure enough, κοινωνίᾳ played a crucial role in the post-conciliar magisterium on the church—as it did in most post-conciliar ecclesiologies and ecumenical dialogue.31 The word appears around 100 times in each of John Paul II’s documents: Christifideles laici (1988), Redemptoris missio (1990), Ut unum sint (1995), Novo millennio ineunte (2000), Pastores Gregis (2003), and Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003).32 Communion and/or fraternity feature strongly in Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus caritas est (2005) and Sacramentum caritatis (2007), and in Pope Francis’s Evangelii gaudium (2013), Amoris laetitia (2016) and Fratelli tutti (2020).33 Other important documents giving considerable attention to communion include The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the Relatio finalis of the 1985 Synod, the CDF document Communionis notio (1992), the Directory for Ecumenism (1993), and the Directory for Bishops (2004).34 In what follows I will attempt to summarize in a few paragraphs what those many documents say about communio, especially amongst the bishops. First and foremost, κοινωνίᾳ is always framed by the mystery of the personal union between the persons of the Blessed Trinity (often described as the “transcendent” dimension of communion); all other communion is a participation by us in that divine life and love. Secondly, κοινωνίᾳ is the personal union of the believer (and the body of believers) with the divine Persons (often described as the “vertical dimension” of immanent communion). Thirdly, κοινωνίᾳ is the personal union of believers with each other (the “horizontal dimension”). And, fourth and finally, κοινωνίᾳ is sometimes used analogically to describe the union between all human beings and their natural communities with the rest of humankind and even the rest of creation.35 Here grace builds on nature, communion upon natural affinity and friendship; but grace then heals and elevates natural community into a spiritual communion. This is initiated by God the Father, creating us in love to share in his

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 45

divine life and the lives of others, by God the Son assuming our human nature to reintroduce us to this life with God and our fellows, and by God the Holy Spirit continuing to inspire and deepen that fellowship.36 This spiritual or vertical communio is therefore a gift, received as faith through word and sacrament, by each believer while on earth, and fulfilled as beatitude in the communion of saints in heaven.37 Secondly, building upon the idea of the church as sacrament, ecclesial communio is rooted in baptism, which conforms us to Christ, and fed by the Holy Eucharist, “the creative force and source of communion among the members of the Church.” The Eucharist makes the church one body and grounds a “eucharistic ecclesiology.”38 It is the Spirit of Truth that maintains this ecclesial communion, who distributes hierarchical and charismatic gifts for the building up of the church, and who adorns the church with spiritual fruits.39 The church is united, not merely as a federation of local churches, but so each local church manifests the one universal church. Thus the church makes the churches and the churches make up the church; to belong to the church is to be at home in any and all of them.40 Ecclesial communion also unites the church to the poor and persecuted and permanently opens her to missionary endeavor.41 It drives efforts to heal imperfect communion with individuals or with other churches and Christian communities through prayer, penance, study, dialogue, and collaboration.42 Ecclesial communion unites the living and the dead as one church, founding the Catholic devotion to the saints and prayers for the dead, and it is consummated in the ultimate unity of humanity in heaven.43 Thirdly, the effects of this communion upon believers are manifold. It enables them to conform their minds and wills to Christ’s and informs their identity, values, and actions; their communion is in turn strengthened when they do so or ruptured when they fail to do so.44 It should bring spiritual solidarity and union in prayer and charity, faith, and hope.45 Fourthly, it falls to the bishops to be visible signs and mediators of communion in all their governing, teaching, and sanctifying work.46 This means, above all, evangelizing, catechizing, and other-

46 |

SOURCES

wise encouraging their flock in their union with the Blessed Trinity, the communion of saints, and fellow believers.47 But what is to unite the bishops themselves? Christus Dominus (1965), the Council’s decree on the pastoral office of the bishop, repeated Lumen gentium’s teaching about the bishops forming a single college or body under the pope, with a common concern for the whole church, some joint responsibilities, and collegiate activities.48 As the bishops in the early centuries, moved by fraternal charity and zeal for the universal mission entrusted to the apostles, pooled their gifts by clustering into ritual churches under a patriarch or major archbishop and synod or into provinces under a common metropolitan, so the Council now made more comprehensive provision for national episcopal conferences, ecclesiastical provinces, and bishops holding inter-diocesan offices.49 In 1998 Pope St. John Paul II’s motu proprio Apostolos suos confirmed the importance of the episcopal conference as a mechanism for encouraging collegial spirit and collaboration.50 And the 2004 Directory for Bishops further elaborated the theology of episcopal conferences. Important as these documents and the new Code of Canon Law were for establishing collegial structures, what mattered most, according to the pope, was the fraternal charity that should motivate them.51 While having concrete expression in institutional structures such as episcopal conferences, collegiality must ultimately be understood as an ecclesial sensibility, a particular way in which we understand ourselves as bishops and our relationships to one another. The Directory explains that “the Bishop is never alone because, through ‘affective collegiality’ (collegialitas affectiva), he is constantly united with his brethren in the episcopate and with the one chosen by the Lord to be the Successor of Peter.”52 Effective collegiality builds on affective collegiality. By their teaching and preaching the bishops must be conduits of the apostolic tradition, ensuring they and their people are faithful to the Gospels and the magisterium and that their local church authentically manifests the faith and life of the universal church.53 Such teaching will help gather the faithful into Eucharistic communities where the bishop or a priest deputed by him presides at the Eucharistic sacrifice, and will help promote devotion to “that

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 47

wonderful sacrament” of Communion with Christ and the church.54 It fosters devotion, also, to the church itself as the home and school of communion, and to the saints as the goal and fulfilment of all communion.55 The bishop must also encourage an intimate brotherhood amongst his clergy, manifested in the spiritual, material, pastoral, and personal help they give each other, and in their gatherings and sharing of life, labor, and charity.56 And he is to discern and unite the pluriform temperaments, charisms, states of life, liturgical traditions, and cultures of his people as one family, enabling their participation and co-responsibility.57 Evolving understandings of co-responsibility in the church would find expression in the concept of synodality during the papacy of Pope Francis. In his Christmas address to the Roman curia in 2021, the pope returned to Vatican II’s themes of collegiality and communion, which he said are essentially about our relationship with Christ. Only with Christ in the center of our lives and thinking, only by praying together, listening together to God’s word, and helping each other will bishops and curial officials be more than strangers working for the same company or rivals for influence and personal advancement. Communion requires a magnanimity toward others, including those with whom we do not necessarily agree on everything, humbly accepting that the differences between us can contribute to the richness of the church and an effort to build relationships that goes beyond our official meetings and common work tasks.58 SY N O D A L I T Y I N T H E M A G I S T E R I U M O F POPE FRANCIS In rehearsing Lumen gentium’s teaching on episcopal collegiality and applying it to bishops’ conferences, Christus Dominus also commended the practice of international synods. Here, too, the Council was retrieving and building upon an ancient practice whereby church teaching was settled and discipline regulated by synods and councils of bishops. The Council fathers declared that they earnestly desired “that the venerable institution of synods and councils flourish with fresh vigor. In such a way faith will be deepened

48 |

SOURCES

and discipline preserved more fittingly and efficaciously in the various churches, as the needs of the times require.”59 Even before Christus Dominus was promulgated, Paul VI had issued his motu proprio, Apostolica sollicitudo (1965), instituting the Synod of Bishops as a permanent ecclesial institution that would foster unity and collaboration between the bishops.60 This was animated by a desire both to retrieve episcopal associations that had served the church well in its earliest centuries and to build upon the positive experience of the bishops gathered at the Vatican Council. In an address given in 1974, Pope Paul clarified that the Synod of Bishops was not a standing ecumenical council nor a sort of ecclesiastical congress or parliament.61 Rather, it is a unique gathering of bishops from each nation, heads of Roman dicasteries, some religious superiors, and some others appointed by the pope that serves the common good of the church by uniting the bishops and offering counsel to the Holy Father.62 Drawing inspiration from the Acts of the Apostles and the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis has stretched the concept of synods in various, sometimes analogical, ways. While the noun σύνοδος (synod) has a long history in Catholic thought and practice63 and its own particular iterations in Eastern Christianity,64 the pope has broached the subject of “synodality” in addresses to the Synods on the Family, Youth, Amazonia, and Synodality and in other places.65 He has also used its adjectival and adverbial progeny “synodal” and “synodally” in various contexts. As a noun, synodality is said to be “an expression of the Church’s nature, form, style and mission.”66 It is “the whole Church,” “one great people . . . Fratelli tutti,” “an open square where all can feel at home and participate.” 67 It imagines a church aware of people’s needs and aspirations, formally gathered to reflect upon a common theme, and led in that process by the Holy Spirit. Here Pope Francis emphasizes the elements of journeying and togetherness—what he calls “a pilgrim hermeneutic.”68 It has a leveling effect: on this journey, all are heard and their opinions valued, the ordinary faithful no less than the prelates, and even social outcasts.69 A synod is a “point of convergence” where the ideal of “a listening Church” is actualized: not just a consultation among the lay faithful, followed

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 49

by a talkfest of bishops, followed by a document from the pope, but an evolving process, now being refashioned as “a privileged instrument for listening to the People of God.”70 As a verb “synoding” captures certain ways of being and acting as a church: stopping, listening “with the ear of the heart,”71 encountering, discussing, discerning, praying together; in the process, coming closer to each other, encountering Christ, evolving and handing on the tradition,72 and serving the People of God. Synoding is ecclesial living, marked “by praying and opening our eyes to everything around us; by practicing a life of fidelity to the Gospel; by seeking answers in God’s revelation.”73 It is “an exciting and engaging effort that can forge a style of communion and participation directed to mission.”74 As an adjective or adverb, synodal qualifies the church or ecclesial activities as welcoming, accommodating, hearing in “sincere, open and fraternal discussion”75; “avoiding artificial, shallow and pre-packaged responses”;76 accepting and involving diverse people; and oriented not just to more talk but to active service of others. A “synodal process” is one whereby the whole church, under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, moves from one place or way of thinking or acting to another and is united rather than fractured in the process. W H AT SY N O D A L I T Y I S N O T Earlier I suggested that collegiality, while having concrete expression in ecclesiastical structures, such as synods and episcopal conferences, might best be understood as an ecclesial sensibility: so, too, I would suggest that synodality is not ultimately a fifth mark of the church but a sensibility, reflecting the communio ecclesiology that emerged from Vatican II as the master-narrative for the church. Rather than a flattening of ecclesial hierarchy or secularizing of governance structures, it is above all an affirmation of the gifts and potential contributions of all Christians to the church’s mission.77 Pope Francis has in fact repeatedly critiqued liberal democratic or secular political readings of synodality. “The Synod is not a

50 |

SOURCES

parliament or an opinion poll,”78 “neither a convention, nor a parlor . . . nor a senate, where people make deals and reach a consensus,”79 nor a slogan to be bandied about at meetings so some group can get its way, nor a reduction of God’s will to the flavor of the day.80 No, a synod is an ecclesial reality, an expression of the church’s nature and mission,81 a journey by which the church seeks “to understand reality with the eyes of faith and the heart of God,” with the deposit of faith as “a living spring from which the Church drinks.”82 Rather than achieving consensus and making deals, a synodal church seeks to proclaim the truth and save souls.83 Another misconception of synodality into which we can easily slip is a bureaucratic one. Here synodality is a tick-a-box exercise of conducting the asked-for consultations, writing up the reports, submitting them on time to the national collators or the international synod office, or parallel behavior in other consultations. Years ago, Hans Urs von Balthasar called for a theology formulated on our knees in worship rather than a theology formulated on our asses at the desk;84 and Joseph Ratzinger warned us about a paperdominated episcopacy, inundated with administrivia and distracted from spreading of the Gospel, bishops who produce more committee minutes than pastoral fruits.85 In the great 1980s political satire Yes Minister (1980–84) and Yes Prime Minister (1986–88), the Rt Hon. Jim Hacker, MP (played by Paul Eddington) is the bumbling politician desperately trying to save his political career while formulating and enacting a policy or two. Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by Nigel Hawthorne) is the permanent secretary of that department and the consummate bureaucrat, devoting himself to ensuring that the minister does as little as possible and always supports departmental policy. The parallels with episcopal life are too many to list here: I can only recommend that church leaders see the series for themselves. One common tactic of Sir Humphrey when Hacker is proposing to do something is to say, “That will be courageous, Minister”—in other words, it will cost you votes; and that is usually enough to get the minister to change course! Well, Pope Francis says that synodality requires “apostolic courage,” that bishops “be courageous, Minister.” There will be times when we need to face up to those who seek to

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 51

supplant the light of truth with the threats or seductions of the world. As shepherds we must be prepared to point toward him who is the Way (the ὁδὸς of the σύνοδος), the Truth that enlightens that way, and the Life that enables us to walk it (Jn 14:16).86 Uniting our leading, teaching, and sacraments like the Lord on the road to Emmaus,87 we can shepherd, preach, and sanctify authoritatively, as truly sacred service rather than the (un)civil service of Sir Humphrey. Unlike politicized, bureaucratic, or corporate conceptions of the church, Pope Francis insists that the Holy Spirit is the great protagonist in the church’s life. Without the Spirit, the pope says, we can hold an ecclesial UN meeting or diocesan parliament, “examining this or that question,” but it will not be a true synod, which is “the faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’ (Rv 2:7).”88 Prayerful discernment must therefore guide the synod, “preventing it from becoming a Church convention, a study group or a political assembly, but rather a grace-filled event, a process of healing and renewal guided by the Spirit.”89 This emphasis on synodality as a form of prayer90 is perhaps unique to Pope Francis’s teaching. “The Synod is a process of spiritual discernment, of ecclesial discernment, that unfolds in adoration, in prayer, and in dialogue with the word of God.”91 Synods will only be a space for the action of the Holy Spirit if participants engage in “trusting prayer . . . that is the action of the heart when it opens to the divine, when our humors are silenced in order to listen to the still quiet voice of God.”92 Otherwise, Francis says, our words will be empty and our decisions merely decorative. In his reflections Cardinal Michael Czerny suggests that to make sense of synodality and avoid parliamentary or bureaucratized misconceptions, we must recover Vatican II’s teaching on the church as sacrament and as communion sanctified by the Holy Spirit and led collegially by the bishops.93 If the story of the road to Emmaus is the ultimate example of σύνοδος, we must acknowledge that amidst the listening and talking the two climactic moments were Christ breaking open the Word and then Breaking the Bread. As

52 |

SOURCES

word-and-bread-breakers, the bishops are essential to any genuinely synodal sensibility, process, or church. That said, some of what Pope Francis says about or around synodality is undoubtedly intended as a provocation to his brother bishops. Speaking in that great city of monuments, Rome, the pope said: Journeying together tends to be more horizontal than vertical; a synodal Church clears the horizon where Christ, our sun, rises, while erecting monuments to hierarchy covers it. Shepherds walk with their people. . . . In this synodal process, [bishops] should ask: “Am I capable of moving, in front, in between, and behind, or do I remain seated in my chair, with miter and crozier?” [We must be] Shepherds in the midst of the flock—remaining shepherds, not becoming sheep . . . the flock knows the difference—in front to show the way, in the middle to sense how people feel, behind to help the stragglers, letting the people sniff out where the best pastures are found.94

And speaking to the Roman curia for Christmas 2021, the Holy Father said: Synodality is a “style” to which we must be converted, especially those of us here present and all those who serve the universal Church by their work. . . . [We must] embrace in the first person the challenges of synodal conversion. . . . We must be converted to a different style of work, of cooperation and communion . . . in humility.95

None of which is to deny that the synod is composed of bishops and “in some manner the image of an ecumenical council and reflects its spirit and method.”96 “It is essentially configured as an episcopal body,”97 for it is the unique role of the bishops, having listened to the laity and clergy, to discern on behalf of the whole church: Through the Synod Fathers, the bishops act as authentic guardians, interpreters and witnesses of the faith of the whole Church, which they need to discern carefully from the changing currents of public opinion.98

Vatican II on Collegiality and Francis on Synodality | 53

The synod process culminates in listening to the bishop of Rome: Who is called to speak as “pastor and teacher of all Christians,” not on the basis of his personal convictions but as the supreme witness to the fides totius Ecclesiae, “the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church.”99

In doing this the pope needs his brother bishops—their guidance, prudence, and experience—and needs like them to be converted by the Holy Spirit.100 Pope Francis has sought to expand the idea of synodality, beyond Synods of Bishops as understood in the traditions of the Eastern and Western churches, to being a model of hierarchical communion in the local church, in bodies such as the presbyteral council, college of consultors, and diocesan pastoral council, in ecclesiastical provinces and national and regional bishops’ conferences, in international gatherings, and in many other ways.101 CONCLUSION So, to sum up: the church at the Second Vatican Council and since has described itself as a sacrament, a sign and instrument of union with God and humanity, and as a communion between God and humanity and between human persons. It has reflected upon the bishops as a stable college and their particular relationship when gathered in synod. The idea of synodality has in recent years been a rich source of reflection on ecclesial identity and mission. What it means to qualify an institution or activity as “synodal” is sometimes unclear because the concept is still crystallizing. But for those charged with the office of bishop it means they: • exercise their sanctifying, teaching, and especially governing offices in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college • balance in genuinely Catholic ways the universal and the particular, and the hierarchical priesthood and the priesthood of all the faithful

54 |

SOURCES

• mediate communion in all their governing, teaching, and sanctifying, encouraging the faithful in their union with the Blessed Trinity, the communion of saints, and fellow believers • participate with open minds and willing hearts in ecclesial gatherings such as ecumenical councils, synods, and national and regional episcopal conferences • cultivate amongst themselves an ecclesial sensibility that is fraternal and collegial with respect to their brother bishops, clergy, and lay faithful, stopping, listening, encountering, discussing, praying, discerning, deciding with all and for all, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit • be conduits of the apostolic tradition, gather the local faithful into Eucharistic communities, preside at the Eucharistic sacrifice, promote devotion, unite and encourage the clergy, and engage in processes of prayerful, spiritual discernment • be open to new voices, views, pastoral strategies, ways of service, while eschewing politicized or bureaucratized misconceptions of the Church and her mission. In this chapter I have attempted to trace the fruits of thinking about the church and the bishops as sacrament, communion, college, and synod, in the teachings of the Vatican Council and since, especially in the magisterium of Pope Francis. In subsequent chapters I will try to unpack what all this might mean in practical terms for various dimensions of our lives as bishops. I began this chapter with reference to the centrality of Christ in our mission, as exemplified in the Pantocrator in St. Paul’s in Rome. With Pope Paul and Pope Honorius before him, we lie prostrate at the feet of Jesus and ask that he, with Peter and Paul, Andrew and Luke, make of our bishops a collegium, an ordo, a brotherhood at his service and the service of the Gospel.

PA R T I I Living Episcopal Unity

55

4

Episcopal Spirituality

H

aving considered the theoretical basis for episcopal fraternity and communio—in the New Testament, the tradition, in the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on collegiality, and in post-conciliar teaching on synodality—we are ready to start reflecting on some of the implications for the lives of pastors. T H E C O N T E M P L AT I V E D I M E N S I O N O F E P I S C O PA L S P I R I T UA L I T Y C. S. Lewis, basing himself soundly on scripture, said, “In Heaven, everything is either silence or music.”1 The Christian God is the Word, the God who speaks. Yet, paradoxically, the Word dwelt voiceless in his mother’s womb for nine months and entered the world as a wordless baby, lived in the obscurity of Nazareth for most of his earthly life, and accomplished his redemptive work in the muteness of the Passion and silence of the tomb. Much of what he did, he did in silence. And when he spoke, the scribes and pharisees, apostles and crowds were often silent before him. These quiet aspects of the Word incarnate and dwelling among us continue to suffuse the Most Holy Eucharist, our primary encounter with God in this world, where even the priest-protagonists are first listeners to the readings and prayers, and where Christ is present under the silent species of bread and wine. Today silence is difficult to attain. We are surrounded by noise: the horrible, brutish noise of endless traffic; or the incessant bangbang-bang of Progress; even when alone the car radio, earphones, or Smart TV shield us from the uncomfortable encounter with silence. Add artificial lighting, computer screens, smartphones, and the rest, and modern life is one big sensory overload. Yet we do still understand something of that quiet gazing in wonderment and adoration from ordinary life: the way the Lover gazes upon the Beloved; or the mother her newborn child; the 57

58 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

appreciative viewer an artistic masterpiece or natural wonder; a fan one’s favorite teacher or performer. All these, in different ways, give us some understanding of that silent attention we call adoration, the gaze of the creature upon its Creator. God gives us his saints as examples of this attentive gaze. The iconographical tradition presents the saints as eternally looking toward God, and they look endlessly fascinated, never bored. Not just the saints already in glory, but each of us while still on earth is summoned by God to that mystery of stillness that is adoration of the Holy Eucharist or in private prayer. We notice how quiet are many mysteries of the Rosary, without busyness and publicity: only two or three were present at the annunciation, visitation, nativity, and transfiguration; only a few more at the presentation and Last Supper; only the Lord was awake for the agony or present for the resurrection. Our spiritual reading and ongoing theological formation will most often occur alone. Much of our prayer and contemplation is silent—unless we emit occasional moans and alleluias! But isn’t the liturgy necessarily noisy? Fr. Vincent Nguyen Tien Hai was ordained a Dominican priest in 1975, just as the communists took over all Vietnam. He was appointed to one of the poorest parishes in Saigon and shared in the people’s hardships. He worked by day as a tricycle pusher and by night as a teacher. He was forbidden to practice his priesthood, and simply for being a priest he was eventually imprisoned. He spent some time in solitary confinement, where his hair went prematurely gray. While there, he longed for the Eucharist: to receive it as a Christian and to celebrate it as a priest. After escaping to the Australian province of the Dominicans, he told us of a Mass he celebrated in that concentration camp once he was released from solitary confinement into ordinary barracks. A tiny piece of bread had been smuggled into the camp, with a medicine capsule of wine inside it. One night, after preparing the others in his barracks, he lay in the dark on his bunk and whispered the prayers of the Mass. His chest was the altar, his heart the relic below. Though they risked their lives by doing so, those in the bunks nearby whispered their responses, and each received a crumb of Christ’s Body. There was almost nothing to be seen in that Mass. Almost nothing to be heard. Yet I suspect

Episcopal Spirituality | 59

that those present were more completely engaged than most people who attend Mass in far more comfortable circumstances. Some people think the Second Vatican Council said that at Mass as many people as possible should be busy doing something for as much of the time as possible. But as Pope Benedict XVI pointed out, when Sacrosanctum concilium called for participatio actuosa—actual participation—by everyone in the Mass, it did not mean this.2 There is no need to be doing something all the time, least of all for that one hour a day or a week we give back to God. There is another way of actual participation, and that is in contemplation. Contemplation, we must be clear, is not “vegging out,” anesthesia, or going to sleep. It engages all the senses and passions, intellect and will, imagination and memory, pondering God’s words and actions, as Mary so often did. We can sit quietly with God’s words and actions in the liturgy, letting ourselves be immersed in them like fish becoming part of the sea. Arguably actual participation in the Eucharist is first and foremost contemplative. It remembers and ponders the breaking of Christ’s Body and spilling of his blood on the cross, that moment of our salvation that he mimed at the Last Supper and extended throughout time through his church’s celebration. On the cross and in the Eucharist, we encounter a man and God whose love for us is so total that he would give us absolutely everything he is: his divinity and humanity, his body and blood, his life, death, and resurrection. We contemplate that saving mystery in Eucharistic adoration outside the sacred liturgy and in our encounter with Christ in the Mass, when Christ the high priest offers himself through the hands and voices of his priests. That mystery involves everyone who is truly participating, not just those with jobs to do. In this secret heart of the church, we may all return the loving gaze of God, as much the one kneeling at the back as the one standing up the front. There at the Eucharist we hear the silence of eternity. Be quiet now, Jesus says, just for a little while be still. Stay with me Peter, James, and John, my college of bishops. Keep watch with me. Watch and pray. In silence—but also in song. Human language is designed, first and foremost, for the praise of God, for hymnody. It is “doxological,” made for worship, not for strife. God the Father eternally speaks or

60 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

sings forth God the Son who is the Word. That Word became flesh so that flesh might hear and speak to God. It was said of St. Dominic that he always spoke either to God or about God. He had many words to say, but none was wasted. Bishops must also make of their lives a song of praise. One model for meeting Christ in the Eucharist is Mary, the mother of God. In Western iconography she is commonly portrayed as a beautiful Northern Italian woman nursing a big fat bambino. But in Eastern iconography she is a rather more timeless and placeless figure, often still pregnant with the unborn Jesus visible through her glass belly, his hand held up in blessing. Here Mary the Theotokos is like a monstrance bearing the Blessed Sacrament for all to see. In Western iconography it is at the visitation that she carries him, as if in a Eucharistic procession, to her cousin. Luke reports that at that encounter Elizabeth felt the child leap in her womb. According to one tradition the unborn John was doing somersaults, dancing for joy that Mary and Jesus had come. In another, he leapt into kneeling position, his hands together in adoration. Neither would have been very comfortable for Elizabeth! But either way, the response is to Mary the walking monstrance or the Divine One she bears within. This encounter provokes from Mary her Magnificat, a song of praise before the tabernacle of her own body. And it evokes from Elizabeth her duet with the Archangel Gabriel, the Hail Mary, sung in celebration of Mary’s Yes to God and all that followed. This word we translate as “Yes” is, in the original Greek text, γένοιτο. You’ll remember from your Greek that this verb is a thirdperson singular aorist in the optative mood: in other words, it doesn’t express consent or demand so much as desire. Mary is not just saying “Okay, if you must” in a grudging or numb acceptance of God’s will. Rather, she is saying,“Yes, that’s what I want! O that it might happen!”—a wholehearted acceptance, a generous gift of self in one word. The word γένοιτο is also in the middle voice—a voice between active and passive found only in a few languages— in which the subject of the verb performs some action upon itself. It’s a construction that’s hard to express in English, but American English catches it in phrases like, “Don’t beat up on yourself” or

Episcopal Spirituality | 61

“She injured herself playing ball.” Here the activity of God in the life of Mary was also Mary’s activity: she was both an active agent and a willing recipient of God’s work. She spoke the Word, and he spoke her. THE ACTIVE DIMENSION OF E P I S C O PA L S P I R I T UA L I T Y Some years back (the recently deceased) Paul Johnson reminisced in the London Tablet about his schooldays in an English Jesuit college where, as a cadet, he wore puttees and a peaked cap, brass buttons and shining boots. On the Feast of Corpus Christi, the boys provided a Sovereign’s Guard of Honor at High Mass, not to glorify military service or earthly sovereignty, but to mark the real presence of the King of kings in their chapel and, indeed, his power to turn swords into ploughs, rifles into ex votos. The boys lined the aisle with rifles and fixed bayonets and, as the moment of consecration approached, marched up in front of the High Altar and greeted the Host held on high with the Present Arms. In the evening, at solemn benediction, in the pitch-dark chapel, two thousand candles were arranged on the altar, linked by a thin thread. At a signal from the master of ceremonies, the outermost candle on each side was lit and the flames leapt from one to another until the entire altar was incandescent. Sadly, we know all too well, rifles and guncotton, or their more contemporary equivalents, are usually used for more sinister ends. For some time now the world has looked on with horror as a bullypower has invaded and bombarded a peaceful, democratic neighbor, the people of Ukraine. We ache for the day when weapons are turned to the honor of God rather than the death of our fellows, as Isaiah prophesied: “In days to come . . . [the nations] shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”3 Dare we hope for a civilization of life and love? Well, Isaiah dared to hope. Much of his prophecy is in verse, probably intended to be sung. Words are often especially moving

62 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

in song. It is one way of understanding authority in the church. The Petrine or hierarchical (including episcopal, credal, canonical, rubrical) dimension of the church complements the Marian aspect. Mary the contemplative, “pondering all these things in her heart,” sings her Magnificat. We want to join in. But every song has a melody and harmonies. Some ways of singing it are true to form, in tune; others are unfaithful to the composition and fail to carry the tune, only making for disharmony and discord. Christ himself institutes the Petrine principle of order for his church, not as an optional extra, but essential for any group to sing together. From the very beginning of the church the Holy Eucharist was celebrated under authority. It was never a “make it up as you go” affair. The oldest Christian text outside the New Testament, the Didache, calls the Mass “the cosmic mystery” that defines the very nature of the church. To lead the community at the Eucharist you had to be an ordained elder, and elders had to do this in memory of Christ, not do their own thing. St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their disorderly Eucharists. A few decades later, Pope St. Clement wrote to those same troublesome Corinthians because the Diocesan Pastoral Council was fighting with the bishop and clergy over the liturgy. Around the same time St. Ignatius of Antioch told his flock to reverence the bishop who leads us in the Mass as an alter Christus and to have nothing to do with those who break with the unity of the church to run their own show. Some years ago, I remember a discussion with a great Dominican theologian of the Eucharist, Fr. Herbert McCabe, about whether it would be more relevant for a youth Mass to use potato chips and Coca-Cola instead of bread and wine. He said he thought we should follow the rubrics here, because order matters in the liturgy, and it is for the church to set the parameters for the sacraments. But then he added another reason not to use chips and coke: not because they were not bread from wheaten flour and wine from grapes (as Jesus used and the church requires), but because, he said, chips and coke are so lacking in nutrition as to be doubtfully food and drink at all! He was being humorous, but there was an important point here about food for body and soul. Jesus chose the simple staples of bread and wine to make himself sacra-

Episcopal Spirituality | 63

mentally present to our everyday world. But bread and wine are not neutral symbols for us: they bear all the ambiguity of human fabrication, with its mixture of blessing and curse. Bread, the simple food of peasants and kings, is made from that abundance of wheat that grows all over our globe. Yet we know there are so many without their daily bread while others horde and gorge on it. Pope Francis has spoken out against the Russian blockading of Ukrainian wheat exports to the world, which is causing price inflation, shortages, and starvation in many places. Trade wars parallel military ones, tariffs and cartels prop up prices, and grain is stockpiled and dumped rather than shared with the starving. Then there is wine that cheers hearts and evokes parties, toasts, and good times. Yet we know alcohol is the source of so much pain and suffering in drunkenness and violence, in destitution and deaths on the roads, in broken homes, and bones, and lives.4 Into all this mess of human joys and hopes, pains and fears, this gang of confused and betraying disciples at the Last Supper, into all the disharmony and discord of human noise and all the causes of division and low morale in the church today—the bread of starvation and the wine of inebriation—Jesus comes to us, again and again, in the Eucharist. Under these very ambiguous signs of bread and wine he makes himself present, making sense of it all, humanizing it and divinizing it, so that nothing human is alien to God except that which is anti-god, sin. As from all eternity, now from the very middle of the human mess, God the Father sings his great love song that is God the Son. And that Son now charges the apostles and their successors: “From now on, do this in memory of me.” If the church is to keep doing this, if Christ’s saving death and resurrection are forever to be sacramentalized in his body and blood, and then brought as Communion to his people, then the church needs bishops. It needs them to hear and carry forward the love song that God sang to their predecessors at the Last Supper. It needs them to keep feeding their people’s bodies and souls and to be calling, forming, and ordaining priests so that happens. But before being agents of that Eucharist or chanters of that Magnificat, those bishops themselves need to hear the song, adore the Presence, and receive the Substance into our own.

64 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

T H E I N T E R C E S S O RY P R AY E R O F A B I S H O P Sometime back I was asked how a bishop prays. I said I could only speak for how this bishop prays, but that the center-point for my day is celebrating the Mass and the Divine Office and spending time with the Lord in my oratory, listening, thanking, and adoring him. As I get older, I find I treasure these more and more in my life as our highest forms of prayer, even if I must battle my diary, the many demands, and my own nature to make the necessary time for these things. Then there is the Rosary, a favorite prayer of many Christians and a special one for Dominicans. But a very common kind of prayer in my life is intercessory prayer, asking especially for God’s help with my needs and the needs of particular others, of the whole church, and of humanity. That intercession is built into the Mass and Breviary but is also a feature of my more spontaneous prayer. It has become such a common part of the rhythm of my day that I do it more or less instinctively now. And knowing that tens of thousands of people are praying for my intentions each day makes me even more inclined to form some good intentions! I live beside my cathedral in the center of Sydney, and, when I go for walks, I pass buildings representative of the life of my city and nation. I often find myself praying for those within and those associated with that part of our community. I see banks and shops and big businesses and pray for our economy, for those who make the decisions that influence the financial and work lives of so many others, for greater equity and opportunity for all, for work and comfort for families without materialism and greed. I pass our state legislature and pray for civic leaders, that they will make compassionate, courageous, wise decisions, will reverence the rights of every person (including the unborn and the dying, the refugees, and the poor), and serve well our common good. Having been at one time chaplain to a state parliament, I’m all too aware of the pressures on our civic leaders, and so I pray also that they might be idealistic and practical people, with egos and passions under control, that they might see more of their families and friends, and that they might let God into their big decisions, political or personal.

Episcopal Spirituality | 65

I also go by Sydney Hospital and pray for the patients and health professionals there and in other health and aged care institutions. Having been gravely sick myself some years back, I have a much greater appreciation than I did before of human fragility and resilience, health and suffering, and of the wonderful work of carers of different kinds. The COVID pandemic has been similarly revealing for many. Looking at the hospital, I ask God to give us all a greater appreciation of the preciousness of human life and health and to give those in this hospital and like places prudence and skill in their decisions, the internal resources they need as well as the public ones, and a moral conscience worthy of their professional skill. And I pray that all may have access to the care they need. On those walks I also pass the state library and several monuments and buildings that tell the story of my city and nation, and I thank God for the gift of that history and community, however imperfect both are. I ask him to continue to guide and protect us. In particular, I pray for the organs of our culture that are making our history right now, such as our media, academic institutions, arts, and more. I pray that these might enrich our hearts and minds rather than corrupt them, draw our attention to the best and worst in our past and present, inspire us to do better in the future. I also progress through several lovely parks and gardens, fountains, and a war memorial. I commend to Almighty God those who inhabited the land before colonization and their descendants living today; those who died building or protecting the nation; and those presently in harm’s way on our behalf. As I see the tourists (at last they are returning!) and the locals walking through the park, taking their photos, chatting with each other, and enjoying the beautiful weather, I thank God for the gifts of ancestors, friends, and strangers, of beauty, leisure, and ecology, and ask him to inspire respect for these in us all. Soon I am back at my cathedral, and that place always takes my breath away: its sheer beauty, its testimony to the faith, especially of the poor who built it, and its role as the spiritual heart of our city today. What a privilege to live and work there! I pray for the people of Sydney, especially for my own flock, people from every tribe and nation and language, for my Christian sisters and

66 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

brothers of other “denominations,” for other believers, and for those still searching. I pray for my priests, deacons, religious, and lay leaders who serve with me, and for my brother bishops, including those who went before me, those presently sick or struggling, those who love me, and those who find me a trial. I thank God for the great gift of knowing him, and loving him, and his offer to be forever part of my life and for me to be forever part of his. Well, for what it’s worth, that’s how one bishop prays. And in its inclusiveness, listening, discerning, and its being prayed along the way, the hodos, it might be thought to be a “synodal” kind of prayer, as might the adoration that precedes it. C U LT I VAT I N G E P I S C O PA L I M A G I N AT I O N Asked how we could preach better, one of my senior Dominican brothers answered, “Read poetry.” It is not a question of quoting slabs of T. S. Eliot to blank-faced congregations, but of having more beautiful things in our imagination and memory to call upon. He might just as easily have said, “Go to the zoo, art gallery, opera, cinema, or theater. Eat better food, when you are not fasting. Look at beautiful buildings and delight in the natural beauty of our land. Travel and enjoy other cultures and lands too. Play a sport, have conversations with interesting people. Read good novels, biographies, and histories.” The same old father famously said of another brother, “What he most needs is to fall in love and read a book!” Now, I’m not recommending that celibates fall in love, except with God and his church, but I will say a little about reading a book or two. Traditionally Catholic philosophy has spoken of two faculties of the soul, that which wills and that which knows, the heart and the mind. They are not separable: the human being is a unity. But it does sometimes make sense to speak of different dimensions of the person. And imagination and memory are in some ways faculties that bridge the mind and heart. Imagination can broaden the mind, stop us being too narrowly rationalistic, too confined by what we see in front of us, and let us see and explore some other prospects; it can also help the will appreciate the upsides of unattractive options and be more courageous and hopeful, making

Episcopal Spirituality | 67

choosing the good easier. The duty of the Christian imagination is not to convince us of the impossible, but to make it easier to know, love, and serve what’s really possible under grace. The church has always sought to form a Catholic imagination in her pastors and people. The Dominican painter and patron of artists Blessed Fra Angelico is famed for his great altarpieces, especially of the annunciation, the Madonna and Child, and the crucifixion, for smaller works, and for adorning his brothers’ cells in San Marco in Florence. His work is found in museums around the world. In the U.S. he’s represented in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Fort Worth, Harvard University, Houston, New York, Philadelphia, Princeton, San Diego, Washington, D.C., and Yale University. His enormous corpus of work suggests a serious endeavor to fill hearts and minds with images that nurture the spirit—what we might call “spirituality.” So, too, we find in church buildings a very definite imaginative framework: the delineation of different spaces; the quality of light created by stained glass, candles, and shiny metals; the furniture, visual cues, and different acoustics that direct attention in particular directions; the sensory experiences of architecture and vestments, statues and paintings, bread and wine, oil and wax, organ and voices, church bells and incense. . . . Iconoclasts in the Byzantine, Reformation, and modern eras sought to reduce the role of such externals in faith and worship and so to whitewash or declutter the churches. Certain ascetic spiritualties seek union with God in the near-total absence of exterior aids. And the persecuted church down the ages and still today in some places has often been forced to live with few external signs of faith. But anthropologists tell us that religion is almost always expressed in sensory ways, and in recent years there has been some recovery of an appreciation of beauty in the service of faith, a renewed Catholic imagination. Whatever arguments people may have about matters of style or theology, few still say that art and beauty are irrelevant to faith. Imagination is crucially important for bishops as preachers and pastors. Surveys have found that a significant factor in people’s attendance or not at church is the standard of preaching and that many think it is low.5 Clearly people are really interested in hearing

68 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

the Gospel proclaimed and unpacked for them; they actually want to be encouraged to relate to Christ and to live a distinctively Christian life! If it is the stars and messages of the culture they want, there are plenty of non-church avenues for that. If bishops are successfully to engage their dioceses with their preaching and teaching or creatively to approach new pastoral challenges (or old ones in new ways), then a well-furnished mind is essential. That will usually require sources beyond Netflix and YouTube, much as I love both. Studying the sacred page and the great theologians will expand and deepen our faith, and so I thoroughly recommend it. But if we are to ensure that our language is accessible and our ideas attractive, we might have to look beyond those texts. Preaching is more than a job, but it is also a job like any other: it requires the perspiration of preparation and practice, as much as the inspiration of old and new insights. Perhaps the most important aspect of that job is delight in words, to take joy in their ability to express thoughts and feelings, their beauty, their truth, and to do so accessibly and interestingly. As you’ll have guessed by now, I love words. No Franciscan “preach always and use words only when absolutely necessary” for me! Words are for preacher-pastors what metal is for metalworkers and statutes are for lawyers. That’s above all because the Word spoken by the Father from all eternity was spoken to us in Jesus Christ, and pastors try to make their words speak for him. They have to care about their words and the ideas they express. That would be true if we were preaching all the time; it’s all the truer given how much of the time we are trapped in meetings and administration that can be deadening for vision. A well-fed imagination can also be an important vaccine against, or therapy for, the depression and demoralization widespread amongst clergy and bishops. These things lift us out of ourselves and transport us to new, better, or at least different places; they enrich our present; they offer hope for our future. Any bishop who thinks he is uniquely challenged or that things could not be worse or cannot get better lacks imagination. And a wonderful thing about reading and other forms of imagination food is that we can piggy-back on other people’s imaginations and inspiration, incorporating the best

Episcopal Spirituality | 69

of our civilization and humanity into our hearts and heads. There is no better weapon with which to contest with demons such as sloth and depression. St. Thomas Aquinas, by the way, suggests, in addition to good reading and contemplation, remedies such as having a good cry, getting lots of sleep, keeping good company with sympathetic friends, taking a warm bath—not too much smelling like the sheep!—or enjoying any licit activity that is fun.6 C U LT I VAT I N G E P I S C O PA L M E M O RY Aquinas also wrote that “because what we hope for is in the future, is difficult, but is possible, youth is a cause of hope.”7 That seems a strange non-sequitur, but he goes on to explain: First, young people have much of the future before them and little of the past behind them: where older people have memories, younger people have hopes. Secondly, on account of their warm nature, youths are high-spirited; their expansive hearts embolden them to attempt difficult things; they are mettlesome and of good hope. Thirdly, having not yet been repeatedly thwarted in their plans and being unaware of their own limitations, young people easily dare what might seem impossible.

The great theologian observed that in these last two respects— high spirits and recklessness—young people are like drunks! Aquinas might have been tongue-in-cheek in some of this, but it is true that we tend to think of maturity as a time of greater realism, caution, even pessimism. Yet look at the heroes surrounding Jesus’ coming. There’s the high priest Zechariah and his wife, Elizabeth, the nunc pro tunc Bishop Simeon and Widow Anna.8 They are all “getting on in years.” But it is they who compose and sing the church’s wake-up call, The Benedictus, and her lullaby, the Nunc Dimittis. How is it that these four kept their youthful openness and inebriating joy? St. Thomas thought getting older can make you cynical: too often your plans have failed, so you end up not expecting much. Yet he knew very well that there is a better way to deal with thwarted plans, and that was the way of saints like Zechariah and

70 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna. We hand over all our hopes and plans, uncertainties and even failures, to God. If it is God blocking our plans, it is because he has greater plans. But if it is man obstructing us, we need not fear. Elders clearly have their place in God’s plans, and whatever age a bishop is, he is one of the church’s elders and can frame the coming of the Lord. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem: Do this in memory of me. Our world has amnesia. If you ask people to put in chronological order Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Aristotle, and Aristotle Onassis, many would have no idea. Amidst rapid social, technological, economic, and cultural change, we have little sense of custom, inheritance, or genealogy, or we flail about, trying to recapture some bit of tradition and store it in a theme park. Some people think memories and history are a constraint on creativity, imagination, the future. But memory, as much as present perceptions, is exactly what feeds imagination, speculation, and action. And those who lack a sense of history are doomed to repeat the worst of the past. People with amnesia are not freer: they lack roots and identity, direction and commitments. Those with a good memory—of history, the arts and sciences, geography and philosophy, scripture and theology—as well as good logic and imagination, have the best minds, for they can draw on what was, and is, and is to come, for thinking, feeling, and choosing. What might be done for bishops and clergy suffering low morale at this time? There are obvious answers, from personal conversion to institutional change, from “shooting” the one causing the grief to learning to live and let live or, better, befriend one’s opponents. One part of the answer is surely to pray about and contemplate more deeply the mystery of the church. The ancient adage that the church is Ecclesia sancta simul et semper purificanda, at once holy and always being renewed, was the jumping-off point for Hans Urs von Balthasar’s essay written in prospect of Lumen gentium, which he titled “Casta Meretrix,” the chaste harlot, the church both sinner and saved.9 We might also reflect more deeply on the nature of human happiness with the aid of that most subversive text, the Beatitudes. By turning our ideas of blessedness on their head, Jesus might well

Episcopal Spirituality | 71

have something important to say to us when we are of low spirits, mourning, meek, persecuted, or hungering for justice. Our spiritual tradition certainly knows about saints who fail, the dark night of the soul, and the heart that is restless until it rests in God. Likewise, we know about hell, whether “hell-on-earth” or hell in the next life. We can see both heaven and hell on the cross: God’s desire for our love and the consequences of the rejection of that love. We need to cultivate again the sense of sin and the “nonsense” of forgiveness— not just in our flocks but in ourselves. We need to have mercy on the church and on ourselves, and bishops and clergy must bring them to both sides of the confessional. We can also mine our ascetical tradition for some medicine for the soul. There are strange and wonderful things to be found there about cultivating self-mastery through moderation, mortification, and self-denial, weeding the soul and making room for virtues and good works to blossom. When we are too comfortable with our creature-comforts or self-pity, our judgmentalism or non-judgmentalism, such asceticisms might be just what we need. On the other hand, we sometimes need a good laugh, a good meal or drink, the company of good friends, to give or receive hospitality and affective collegiality, about which I will have more to say in chapter 5. CONCLUSION Once more to sum up: we need to find space for some silence. For prayer, adoration, listening. Even the liturgy can and should be more contemplative than it often is. Bishops must also make of their lives a song of praise, as Mary did, a third-person-singularaorist-optative-in-the-middle-voice kind of Yes to God! A Yes bishops and priests express especially Eucharistically. And they must make the cares of their people and the needs of the world the center of their prayer. That includes interceding, fasting, and offering masses for each other, being collegial and synodal in praying together and even when praying alone. They must also cultivate their imaginations if they are to preach, sanctify, and govern well and if they are to avoid that depression and demoralization that is avoidable (not all of it is!).

72 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

We all need soul food that lifts us out of ourselves and transports us to new, better places, that enriches us and makes us more hopeful. Bishops must also cultivate memories if they are to stay young. Broad and sustained reading enables them to use the histories, voices, insights, and moods of others, alongside their own, indeed, to make them their own. They might also pray about and contemplate more deeply the mysteries of the church and of human happiness, with the aid of the Gospels and the ascetical tradition. I conclude with Paul’s last words to the Philippians: Finally, my brothers, whatever is true, honorable, and just, whatever is pure, lovely and gracious; if there is any excellence, anything worthy of praise: fill your minds with these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. . . . The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.10

5

Episcopal Friendship ARE BISHOPS SUPERHEROES?

T

he present chapter is the most personal in this book, and so I hope you will forgive me if I leave it in the first person. . . . We are not all fans of the endless stream of superhero movies from the Marvel multiverse of recent decades. I can’t say that I’ve seen them all myself, nor that they’re all equally worth watching. But I try to keep up with some aspects of popular culture. One thing I’ve noticed about these movies is the isolation, loneliness, even depression of many superheroes. Superman, Batman, Black Panther, Spiderman, and Captain America are all orphans, and they all conceal their identities from the world. Superman is from an alien and now extinct race, his Arctic hideout is called “the Fortress of Solitude,” and only a handful of people attend his funeral. Batman is an angry, emotionally dark character, and while he has the occasional sidekick, he avoids close relationships with anyone. Captain America is “loyal to nothing except the American dream,” loses his buddy Bucky and girlfriend Peggy, and ends up fighting his best friend, Tony Stark. Wonder Woman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Wolverine, and Rorschach are all loners. And though he’s not a comic-book figure, we could add James Bond to the list of heroes doomed always to be alone. In all these stories the superhero is set apart from the rest of humanity, whom he or she is called to serve and save. Spiderman’s Uncle Ben tells him that “With great power comes great responsibility,” and each superhero movie has silently added “and great loneliness.” Though no superheroes, something similar might be said of us bishops. In previous chapters I have explored the episcopal vocation as a call to perfection and collegiality and the bishop’s role as agent of communion both locally and universally. These are no small tasks. With the fullness of the priesthood comes the fullest human 73

74 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

participation in Christ’s triple office of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. All this makes the episcopate distinct, even to some extent separate, from other vocations. But many of us bishops resist that reality: when we are with the lay faithful or our fellow priests, we just want to be “one of the guys.” At one level, after all, bishops are just that. To adapt Shylock’s speech in The Merchant of Venice: I am a Bishop. Hath not a Bishop eyes? Hath not a Bishop hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as any Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

In our vulnerability and temptations, strengths and aspirations, character and needs, but above all in our deepest nature and ultimate destiny, we bishops are one with the rest of humanity. We want and need the support of other human beings as friends and colleagues. And since the Second Vatican Council emphasized the universal call to holiness and the bishop’s role as agent of communion, since Pope Francis has highlighted synodality in church life today, we are much more aware of the need to listen to, discern, and share responsibility with lay leaders and clergy. We are all in this together. Bishops don’t have to be like Superman or the Incredible Hulk, permanently at a distance from the rest of humanity. Indeed, we must be careful to avoid it! I S I S O L AT I O N I N E V I TA B L E F O R A B I S H O P ? Yet ordination, the church teaches, makes an ontological difference: like it or not, bishops are set apart. A certain solitude, which may or may not be associated with feelings of loneliness, is probably unavoidable. Though a shepherd must be close to his sheep—so close that, as Pope Francis says, he “smells of the sheep”—still he cannot be part of the flock. He must rise above the flock, to look out for green pastures, distressed lambs, thieves, and wolves, whether he leads from the front, the middle, or behind.

Episcopal Friendship | 75

Jesus, the Good Shepherd, came and lived among us, as one of us. The Epistle to the Hebrews says he was “chosen from among men”1 and so was able to sympathize with us in our weakness and temptations.2 He was one of us. Yet he was never entirely at home amongst us. In the Gospels we see him retreating to contend with Satan or to pray or think alone; sometimes walking or standing by himself; looking forward to his return to the Father; isolated in terror in Gethsemane; abandoned, tried, taunted, and executed more or less alone. What’s more, even as man, Jesus was “the holy one,” “set apart,” “blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.”3 As Son of God, he is one with the Father,4 a priest forever “according to the order of Melchizedek,”5 whose sacrifice is all sufficing, taking away the sin of the world,6 the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.7 Jesus is more than just “one of the boys”! If the Good Shepherd is both inherently and accidentally alone, separated by his identity and mission even from the Twelve, then the under-shepherds modeled upon him are also taken and set apart from the flock. This is part of the role; no sheep can shepherd the flock; the bishop must be different in various ways. In the New Testament much is made of the call and lives of the Twelve; then Matthias, the seven deacons, Barnabas, Paul and others are also “set apart” for their work;8 the apostles appoint or recognize and lay hands on new leaders to assist and ultimately succeed them;9 and the body of “the apostles and elders” is a stable group distinct from the other faithful—even if, for many purposes, they are simply members of the faithful. Set apart for what? Every high priest, the Epistle to the Hebrews says, is chosen from among humanity and appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins on their behalf.10 Bishops must also be teachers, proclaiming the kerygma and helping people mature in faith and life,11 exhorting them to avoid sin and to offer themselves with the offering of Christ’s Body and Blood.12 With such a highfalutin’ identity and tasks, bishops as the high priests of our religion are by definition not just “one of the guys.” John Luttrel’s biography of my predecessor as archbishop of Sydney in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s, Sir Norman Thomas Cardinal

76 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

Gilroy, contains some interesting anecdotes, such as of Gilroy chairing three sessions of the Second Vatican Council and, like many others, struggling to understand Latin spoken in various accents by people unaccustomed to speaking it.13 We meet there a strong administrator and a good negotiator, conservative and cautious by inclination, pastoral and pragmatic in his approach, and loyal to those around him and to his boss, the pope. Behind the poker face was a man of deep and unwavering piety, kindhearted and conscientious. Toward the end we read that at a family gathering Gilroy confessed it had been “lonely at the top” and that he had relied upon his family for the affection and sheer normality he needed.14 Of course, it is “lonely at the top” of many trees, not just ecclesiastical ones. The person giving a lead must maintain a certain distance, for the sake of objectivity and fairness, to avoid favoritism or the perception of it, and so as not to sow seeds of resentment. The teacher cannot be one of the kids; the therapist must be distinguished from the patients. The “call me Bob, I’m just one of the mob” style of priest is well-meaning and often well-liked, but people are also looking to him to offer a particular witness and wisdom, to be a spiritual father and mediate a grace they can get nowhere else. So, too, in a real sense the bishop has no peer apart from other bishops, as he observes the boundaries and fulfills the responsibilities of his office and may have few or no one to talk to with his guard down. Moreover, our intense schedules can mean we neglect those dearest to us. Add the scrutiny they are under today, the cynicism of many since the abuse crisis, the inexorable march of secularization, and the deep divides in Western cultures that have contaminated the church, and many factors serve to distance us from others. Then there’s the reality that many people just don’t know how to deal with bishops. They are sacred persons with a certain mystique around them, however tarnished that has been in recent years. They are big bosses within a massive institution. They dress differently, talk a distinctive language, and live what most would regard as a mysterious life. On several occasions I’ve had the experience of sitting down at a table in a parish, clergy conference, or

Episcopal Friendship | 77

other setting and finding that no one sits beside me. Perhaps everyone is too humble. Perhaps an unhealthy clericalism means they would not even think of it. Perhaps they assume potentates like James and John have claimed the seats to right and left. Or perhaps they think I have two heads and might bite their head off at any moment! T H E R I S K S O F E P I S C O PA L I S O L AT I O N Well, the first bit of advice God gave us in the Bible was that it is not good for a man to be alone. If we are too detached from our people and too busy for our friends, we can end up moody, anxious, cold, depressed, paranoid, or narcissistic. We can make arbitrary judgments, unchecked by other people’s opinions, interests, or emotions. We can be rude or just plain uninterested, even in the people we are talking to one-to-one. We can end up reading all reality in the most binary terms, allowing no compromise, seeing everything as a zero-sum game. The pool of those we listen to can shrink. We can evade scrutiny and critique. And there can be other troublesome behavior: my novice-master used to call it “seeking consolations outside the convent walls.” The effects on our mission are then many. We adopt stances of permanent opposition to certain people, interests, or agencies. We read everything those “on the other side” say or do in the most negative possible light. We become disruptors to the communion to which we are called and of which we are supposed to be agents. Or, perhaps worse, we create façades of consensus by keeping the hard topics off the table, by being mealy-mouthed so everyone imagines we are with them, by bullying others into taking our side, or by disengaging altogether. Truth is sacrificed for the sake of love, or love for truth, and in the end, both are lost. We become counterwitnesses to the communio to which we are called. Returning to our comic book superheroes, we see that their closest friends are . . . other superheroes. Why? Because in the Marvel universe they often work together against common foes; because only another superhero can understand the life of a superhero and relate as an equal; and because there are none of the bar-

78 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

riers that inevitably exist in the “protector-protected” relationship. So, too, bishops naturally look for friendship and fraternity from other bishops—or at least they should. But to avoid becoming brahmins in a caste system, to fulfill their vocation as agents of communion, and simply to enjoy the friendship of particular others, they must look beyond that narrow pool to others as their intimates also. Human beings, Christians, priests, and bishops can exist in isolation. But we can only really live in communion. Where there is discord, non-fraternity, ex-communion, there is damage to our relationships with each other, the church, God, but also to ourselves. There is even sin. In The Brothers Karamazov Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously wrote that “hell is the suffering of being unable to love.”15 A serious Christian himself, he knew that we are creatures made for loving by a God who is Love; for the likes of us not to give ourselves to others in love is a tragedy and our undoing. Which is wise, but not the whole picture. . . . So, I turn to another great literary psychologist-theologian, Charles Schulz, author of the Peanuts comics. In one comic, Charlie Brown declares that he has “come to the conclusion that there’s nothing worse than being unloved.” His crabby companion Lucy insists that being lost in the woods would be worse. To prove it she shoves him into a grove of trees and tells him to stand there a while and he’ll see. Eventually his friend Linus comes by, and asks what he’s doing, to which Charlie laconically replies,“No matter what anyone says, it’s much worse to be unloved than it is to be lost in the woods.” Linus wanders away remarking that he sometimes thinks Charlie Brown has been lost in the woods his whole life! Jokes aside, Schulz’s definition of hell differs from Dostoyevsky’s in a crucial way: you might say it is its inversion. For him the greatest tragedy—hell for a human being—is not so much a failure to love as a failure to be loved. We might say it is both. Dostoyevsky’s fellow-existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre famously said, “Hell is other people.”16 But Christians know none can be happy without deep and enduring friendships, as well as other relationships and networks. St. Catherine of Siena said that God was pazzo d’amore— drunk or insane love for us, for the idea and reality of us, even

Episcopal Friendship | 79

before creation, and that this was what brought us into being.17 Were God to cease to love us, we would instantly cease to exist. If the God revealed in Jesus Christ is a Trinity of Persons in relationship, he is also revealed as a God whose love overflows into creating, sustaining, and redeeming other persons, a love so big he cannot resist joining us in a human life. In 2015, addressing the U.S. bishops, Pope Francis said: We need to let the Lord’s words echo constantly in our hearts: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, who am meek and humble of heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls” (Mt 11:28–30). Jesus’ yoke is a yoke of love and thus a pledge of refreshment. At times in our work, we can be burdened by a sense of loneliness, and so feel the heaviness of the yoke that we forget that we have received it from the Lord. It seems to be ours alone, and so we drag it like weary oxen working a dry field, troubled by the thought that we are laboring in vain. We can forget the profound refreshment which is indissolubly linked to the One who has made us the promise.18

The Holy Father was here recognizing this isolation and sometime loneliness, and their dangers, that I’ve been exploring in this chapter. The heaviness of our yoke, he suggests, and the sense that we are carrying this weight alone can overwhelm us. We can forget whose yoke it truly is and with whom we are “yoked up.” But the yoke of leading the church is ultimately Christ’s yoke, and we are yoked up with the other bishops in the ecclesial labor. Our teaming up in Christ can be the foundation of our fraternity with each other and with him, the source of our communion, alongside any natural friendship. Ideological and emotional divides, ingroups and out-groups, rivalries and maneuvers: these are recipes for further isolation and ex-communion; but spiritual fraternity and human friendship, transcending differences of opinions and temperaments, can draw us out of ourselves and into a deeper communion. To sum up so far: with great power comes great responsibility, and potentially loneliness. Bishops must lead and inspire others in the life of faith, the total gift of self, and the common pursuit

80 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

of holiness, and be builders of communion amongst their flocks. Though thoroughly human and fellow Christians before all else, their charism and office set them apart in certain ways. Some social trends, recent controversies, and cultural polarizations have magnified this. For all sorts of reasons, then, bishops can be or feel very isolated, and this can have unfortunate effects on their personalities, relationships, behavior, and mission effectiveness. With respect to our brothers in the episcopacy, we must aspire to more than a professional relationship, and more than tension avoidance. Yoked up with Christ and each other, we must be mediators of communion to our world. As St. Augustine so movingly wrote: Where I’m terrified by what I am for you, I am given comfort by what I am with you. For you I am a bishop; with you I am a Christian. The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, the other salvation. When I am as if in the open sea, being tossed about by the stormy activity involved in my office, I recall by whose blood I have been redeemed and enter a safe harbor in the tranquil recollection of my prior state. And thus, while toiling away at my own proper role, I take my rest in the marvelous benefit conferred on all of us in common. So, I hope the fact that I have been bought together with you gives me more pleasure than my having been placed at your head.19

S T. T H O M A S O N T H E I M P O R TA N C E O F N O T B E I N G T O O E A R N EST Umberto Eco’s novel The Name of the Rose is a historical murder mystery that sold over 50 million copies and was made into a film starring Sean Connery. It relies for its surface plot upon the discovery of a previously unknown work by Aristotle on laughter and the attempt by some earnest monks to suppress it—if needs be, by murder. The film depicts a somber environment of broken vows and teeth: you’d be forgiven for concluding that all those in fourteenth-century monasteries looked like gargoyles! In any case, they weren’t much given to laughing. It is an all-too-common car-

Episcopal Friendship | 81

icature of religious people: humorless, serious-minded people, with serious dental problems. In the Secunda secundae St. Thomas deals with the virtues of affabilitas (friendliness, affability, charm)20 and eutrapelia (playfulness or good humor).21 Friendliness is about behaving toward others becomingly, which normally includes offering them signs of warmth. As the Psalmist says,“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell in unity.”22 So, the wise man shares innocent pleasures with those around him, and this contributes to fraternity. Playfulness is a virtue Thomas takes from Aristotle,23 but he weds this to the thought of Augustine and John Cassian. The Doctor of Grace said, “I pray you, spare yourself at times: for it becomes a wise man sometimes to relax the high pressure of his attention to work.”24 Cassian relates a story of the Apostle John being playful with some of his disciples—perhaps the young Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch among them.25 Some people were scandalized that a holy man would be so lighthearted. St. John responded by asking one of his critics, who carried a bow, to shoot an arrow for him. And again. And again. Once he had done so several times, he asked him whether he could do it indefinitely, and the man answered that if he continued doing it, either the bow would break or his strength. So, the Beloved Disciple observed, in like manner a man’s mind would break if its tension were never relaxed! Just as a laborer must rest his body, Aquinas concludes, so a thinker must rest his soul in harmless delights like jokes and games. But typically, the Angelic Doctor then provides some rules of the game. Being humorous or playful does not excuse indecent or hurtful words or deeds; as Cicero observed, “Some jokes are just plan discourteous, insolent, scandalous, even obscene.” Nor should the diverting pleasure be such as to distort judgment or undermine the task at hand. Third, it ought to be in harmony with the circumstances: as Cicero said, our “fun should befit the man and the hour”; we don’t in general laugh while someone is grieving; we don’t normally poke fun at a graveside. So, even fun must be reasonable fun. Fourth, we must never prefer our amusements to the love of God or obedience to the law of the church. But if people, places, and

82 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

occasions are respected, not only is laughter permitted, it is also a positive good26—contra the kill-joys in The Name of the Rose. Indeed, if being inappropriately playful can be wrong, so too, on St. Thomas’s account, can be being too serious. A lack of mirth is a vice. If we make ourselves burdensome to others by refusing to join in their fun or hindering their reasonable amusement, this makes us boorish or boring.27 It is well to keep in mind that qualities we may esteem in our brother bishops, such as charm, good humor, hospitality, and affability, are indeed real virtues, and their lack real vices. Simple companionability is the foundation of all fraternity, religious or otherwise, the natural basis upon which grace builds communion. It doesn’t mean we all have to be stand-up comics or the life and soul of the party. But it does mean we have to be available to each other as brothers, and to our clergy and people. St. Thomas used to use the money his superiors let him keep from his lecture fees to pay for his students to go on picnics. Sitting down together for food and drink and conversation is the bedrock of any society—which brings me to. . . . J E S U S O N F R I E N D S H I P, F R AT E R N I T Y, A N D F U N Jesus loved people. Humanity’s greatest friend laid down his life for us. This he did out of that insane love with which God has loved us from the beginning. But the risk with people who say they love everyone is that they don’t really love anyone in particular. That certainly wasn’t true of Jesus. He had a very close bond with his own mother, even if there were occasional tensions.28 There were the Twelve, who crisscrossed the Holy Land with him and with whom there was deep friendship, regular misunderstandings, occasional betrayal, but ready reconciliation. Three of them formed his executive committee and stuck to him like flypaper. There were also the holy women who remained faithful to the end, and one of them, Mary Magdalene, was especially prominent. And he loved others he met, such as the law-abiding rich young man.29 The families of Peter and Lazarus both repeatedly offered hospitality to Jesus. Simon’s family home in Capernaum became something of a home-base for Jesus after he left Nazareth,30 while

Episcopal Friendship | 83

Lazarus’s home in Bethany was a refuge outside Jerusalem. The relationship to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary was clearly one of real intimacy.31 We have glimpses of Jesus bantering with the sisters. When Lazarus was sick, the sisters sent word not that “Lazarus is dying,” but that “Your friend, the one you love, is dying.” On arriving at their home and seeing Martha and Mary grieving, we are told Jesus “was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved”; when he reached the tomb we are told he was “again greatly disturbed.” Then comes the New Testament’s shortest verse, “Jesus wept,” and the Jews’ reaction, “See how much he loved him!” On a later occasion, Mary anointed Jesus in preparation for his burial, for unlike the men, she grasped the import of his predictions of the Passion.32 Whether the two sisters were amongst the myrrhbearing women that saw the empty tomb is uncertain. But on Luke’s account, at least, the Risen Lord led the Eleven back to Lazarus’s hometown of Bethany,33 surely so his three intimates could witness his ascension also. Jesus loved people: he also loved to party.34 He was forever at wedding feasts, Pharisees’ dining tables, eating with tax collectors and sinners,“at home” with close friends, or hosting picnics for five thousand or so in the hills. This was not just in times of leisure, though he clearly enjoyed those to the full. His most precious moments are marked by eating and drinking. His first great sign is turning water into wine; his most recorded miracle is the multiplication of loaves and fishes; and his last wonder before his ascension is the huge haul of fish.35 All these miracles were of end-time proportions, divine in their extravagance. Not just food and drink, but more than anyone could need or want. A foretaste of the heavenly banquet promised by Isaiah, dreamed of by a desert people living at subsistence. As his ministry comes to its climax, he takes his closest friends aside for a last meal, a meal that would make the Passover his own Pasch, a meal he would direct us to perpetuate in the Eucharist.36 Before returning to the Father he dines again with despairing disciples in Emmaus, with confused apostles gathered in the Cenacle, and with his dearest at the lakeside breakfast.37 All this socializing, replete with spiritual significance, came very naturally to a man who loved to party.

84 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

Jesus loved people; he loved to party; he also loved food and drink. This particular aspect of his temperament colored his theology and preaching. Rather than a patristic, scholastic liberation or eco theologian, you might say he was a culinary theologian! The Gospels read as a veritable cookbook. When he wanted to describe the kingdom of God, or the afterlife, or forgiveness, or ministry, or himself, time and again Jesus chose images of food and drink, feasts, and parties. He told us parables about vineyards, grapes, wine, spirits, and vinegar; about wheat, flour, barley, yeast, and bread; about orchards, fruit trees, olives, figs, mulberries, and other fruit; about eggs, pigeons, fish, beef, lamb, pig, goat, and a fatted calf; about salt, honey, and herbs and spices: mint, dill, anise, cumin, rue, mustard, and myrrh.38 He preached about eating and drinking together, hospitality, and table manners. He described prayer as asking our Father for our daily bread and forgiveness as a father holding a feast to celebrate his prodigal son’s return. Christian life is bearing fruit and yielding a harvest. Preaching should be savory. Christian leaders should be wise stewards who feed their charges at the proper time. The kingdom of God is like a wedding party, and in that kingdom Jesus’ disciples will eat and drink at his table.39 How does Jesus describe himself? My food is to do the will of my Father; I am the bread of life. And how does he leave himself for us? Again, as food: his Body and Blood, under the species of bread and wine, the staple foods of life. Jesus is remembered in the meal, present in the celebration, substantial in the food and drink.40 Lots of people did not approve. John the Baptist’s disciples expected more asceticism. The synoptic Gospels record that Jesus’ enemies spitefully dubbed him “glutton and drunkard.”41 On the face of it, the complaint was a straightforward one: that good, religious people are ascetical; they hate the body and all its pleasures; they abstain from anything that would make them smile; but good-for-nothing, irreligious, self-indulgent people bib and tuck and laugh enthusiastically. Some such notion may well have been behind the complaint of the Baptist’s men: that Jesus is too worldly by half; that the end-times should be heralded, indeed inaugurated, by abstinence. But on the lips of the Scribes and Pharisees it

Episcopal Friendship | 85

meant rather more: it was an echo of the Old Law that slobs are best executed and of the Wisdom that winos and overeaters come to nothing or worse; Jesus would get his comeuppance.42 No matter how hard we try to erase it, this old Manichean or Puritan impulse recurs to suspect, ban, or punish fun wherever possible. I remember some years ago hearing the then-bishop Wilton Gregory catechizing a crowd of young people. He observed that we believe Christ conquered sin and death and that he accompanies us through this life and offers us an eternity in heaven. Given how many causes Christians have for hope and joy, he said, would someone please tell their faces! And as Aquinas explained regarding temperance, affability, playfulness, and magnificence, using God’s gifts well is not sinful but positively virtuous.43 It draws us closer to each other and to God. Just look at Jesus. An often-neglected duty is that of hospitality. Bishops, of course, do a lot of entertaining. They host all sorts of functions, accommodate visitors, encourage celebrations. We even try to look after our fellow bishops, in various ways, from time to time. But it can be burdensome, even a source of resentment. The scriptures and tradition record instances of people entertaining the Lord, angels, or saints in the form of beggars or house guests, but also of such opportunities lost by those with inhospitable hearts. As the old Jesuit adage goes, “Venit hospes, venit Christus, crucifige eum!” If the guest comes, Christ comes: Crucify him! Whether our instinct is to party or to look for solitude, to kiss the visitor on both cheeks or don a permanent COVID mask and socially distance, it is important that bishops look out for one another these days, not as unpaid psychotherapists, spiritual directors, or mentors—though some of that may be in order—but just as brothers, by being around for each other and doing things together: getting to the new bishops’ ordinations, to bishops’ conferences and committee meetings, to bishops’ retirements, jubilees, and funerals. We can and should share a meal or a drink together sometimes, go for a walk or a holiday together, take in a movie or concert. The tyranny of distance in our countries means we are rarely cheek by jowl: but some opportunities arise unbidden, and we can make opportunities, also. At the very least we can send a

86 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

message or, better, make a phone call. If we are slow to get together as brothers to share joys and sorrows, hopes and disappointments, or just to have fun and recreate together, beware: our brothers need us and we need them, and communion is a pipedream if there isn’t a human foundation upon which grace can build. We should also maintain and strengthen friendships with clergy and laity. At the beginning of his pontificate Pope Francis wrote: The joy of the gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus. Those who accept his offer of salvation are set free from sin, sorrow, inner emptiness, and loneliness. With Christ, joy is constantly born anew.44

We should delight in being human, Christians, brothers, and sisters! CONCLUSION Human community and spiritual communion are fundamental human longings. Technology keeps us in touch like never before, yet for all their Facebook friends many are isolated. As social beings we find much of our identity, values, and fulfillment with and through others. The teaching of Aquinas on the importance of not being too earnest, and the stories of Jesus’ own social life, suggest that even for us bishops there is a need for good friendships with others and fraternity with each other. In J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, our hero Frodo Baggins could never have taken on his awesome quest without “the Fellowship of the Ring”—his trusty companions—and above all without his faithful friend Samwise Gamgee beside him. Frodo must bear a ring that comes with great power and terrible responsibility. In the first of the excellent trilogy of films, the exhausted and demoralized hobbit declares to his spiritual director, Gandalf, something we might all have felt at times: “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.” To which Gandalf responds, wisely and encouragingly, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world Frodo,

Episcopal Friendship | 87

besides the will of evil. [Your cousin] Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.” If it was Frodo’s destiny to bear the ring, providence would also ensure he had the friendship he needed to do so. May God grant all ring bearers such friends also.

6

Episcopal Preaching BLACK AND WHITE TRUTH IN A TECHNICOLOR WORLD

W

hen the great Anglican divine John Henry Newman became a Catholic (1845), he considered for a time whether he should join the friars of St. Dominic. But on investigation he found that the Dominicans had barely been present in England since the Reformation, were still recovering from the Revolution in France, and in Italy were said to have great wine cellars but not to do very much. “The idea I like exceedingly,” he wrote,“but it seems to me that the Dominicans are a great idea extinct.”1 Not quite. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue—but only with the backing of the Dominicans. In particular, Diego de Deza, OP, then bishop of Zamora (1487–94) and later archbishop of Salamanca (1494–98), then of Jaén (1498–1500), then of Palencia (1500– 1504), then of Seville (1505–23) and finally of Toledo (1523). Columbus was later to declare that the Spanish sovereigns owed their territories in the Indies more to this Dominican’s farsighted sponsorship than their own. Within a generation there were Dominican missionaries all over the Americas, especially in the Caribbean, Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Peru.2 The protomartyr of Florida, Fray Luis Cáncer de Barbastro, was a Dominican priest, but the gruesome fate of his band of friars at Tampa Bay meant the Dominicans retreated to kinder parts of the Americas, leaving the U.S. Mission to the Franciscans and Jesuits. It wasn’t until Newman’s day (1804) that they finally worked up the courage and numbers to set themselves up in the U.S. again. But they had played a part in the great missionary endeavor in the Americas that continues to this day. Back in the Old World they maintained their presence in the universities, teaching theology and philosophy, law, the old arts, 89

90 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

and new sciences, and it was from their professors’ chairs and writing desks as much as their pulpits that the likes of Bartolomé de las Casas and Francesco di Vittoria sought to defend the Indians and slaves from the more rapacious colonists in the New World. The motto of these scholar-pastors was VERITAS; their mission, to contemplate the truth and communicate it to others;3 and they left the universities a patrimony of thinking and customs, so that the black cloaks of the Dominicans evolved into the modern academic dress.4 At their best they were clothed not just in black-and-white wool but in black-and-white words and deeds, which were living testaments to the Truth of Jesus Christ. This passion to be a living testament to Truth is alien to our age. In our time systematic doubt, agnosticism, even a committed nihilism have found their way into the academy, politics, the arts, journalism, and many people’s philosophies of life.5 With Pilate, our age so often answers, Veritas? Quid est veritas? 6 Of course, truth can be hard to find and hold onto with any certainty, and even harder to communicate to others. Our era lacks confidence in the ability to discern and articulate truth. We are trained to be suspicious of universal propositions that attempt to capture complex realities and fail to allow subtle nuances. We fear those with too much certainty, who think they’ve got reality all sewn up and have a monopoly on the truth: we’ve seen too many inquisitors, dictators, ideologues, and cultural colonizers for us to make grand truth claims anymore. And we are sick of the wars—military or cultural—that extreme views generate. So, it is proposed that, at least for the purposes of ordering society, we must strip our worldviews, institutions, laws, and cultures of any “thick” religious-moral content. Increasingly, this “Enlightenment” view requires citizens and lawmakers, business leaders and workers, scholars and students to check their consciences at the cloakroom before entering politics, the academy, the workplace, or a social setting. But neutrality with respect to truth, whether in public life or private, is incoherent.7 If we cannot admit that anything is true in itself or ought to be done or avoided—because talk of truth and values sounds absolutist or religious—then there can be no “ought” about preferring democratic institutions, tolerant com-

Episcopal Preaching | 91

munities, live-and-let-live attitudes, permissive laws, and supportive cultures. So, Enlightenment theorists smuggle in various moral concepts while pretending to moral neutrality. Instead of calling their approaches true or good, which language has a whiff of incense about it, they assure us their policies are “in our best interests,” “balanced,” “rational,” or “democratic.” For all the rhetoric of tolerance and inclusion, they are often as determined to exclude other viewpoints from the public square as were their predecessors with “thicker” conceptions of the good. Yet, ironically, as Tom Holland recently demonstrated in his magnum opus Dominion, their own canons of criticism of the tradition and their proposed alternatives are heavily reliant on fragments of Judeo-Christian, mostly Catholic, teaching and its common or natural law morality.8 What is yet to be demonstrated is how these fragments of Christian patrimony, wrested away from their context amidst other important concepts, can be made to serve in the way that the more wholistic Christian intellectual tradition did for centuries as a basis of our common life. I N T E R R O G AT I O N BY T R U T H Not only does truth make claims too all-enveloping for the tastes of many moderns, worse still, it interrogates us, critiques us, cuts us to the quick, regarding our unjust social structures, institutions, and policies; our long ingrained and firmly held misinformation, prejudices, and ideologies; our inhumane behavior, bad ways of relating, self-centeredness. Truth may tell us that we are very gifted, skilled, and often generous people. But it can have challenging things to say about how we use our gifts and privilege, qualifications and opportunities, how limited in fact is our generosity. Truth demands a response, a rethink, an intellectual, moral, and spiritual conversion. So, it is not just because veritas is so hard to capture and communicate that we are so often resistant, not only because it can be divisive or be used imposingly, but because it can be so disturbing of our present comfort, so subversive and demanding. Yet the past century, perhaps better than any other, has seen what bad news the big lies are and how they hurt people: lies like

92 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

Nazism, Communism, and Jihad, propaganda and brainwashing, genocide and “cleansing” or, most recently, “special military operations”—whole systems of lies on which some modern states depend, and along which lines others divide. Some would say our culture is largely one of lies: financial lies in advertising, tax evasion, and credit beyond our means; political lies motivated by pragmatism, self-promotion, and party loyalty; media lies we call fake news and ideological reporting; personal lies dressed up as freedom, fashion, and self-fulfillment. Lies like happiness through infidelity in our relationships, through aborting our babies, or abandoning our unemployed, sick, or elderly people; through resisting sensible gun measures at home or too readily taking our guns abroad; through inattention toward indigenous people or rejection of newcomers (even the most desperate); or through self-indulgence and neglect of a thousand different kinds. Christians are convinced that veritas liberates us: from falsehood, superstition, fear; from the mirages created by various interests; from the illusions we create for ourselves. Truth dis-illusions, without making us cynical.9 It releases the heart from unnecessary anxiety. It heals inauthenticity, that division of heart that is so corrupting. Truth is proposed, ideology imposed. Truth is radically humanizing, ideology dehumanizing. As St. John Paul II put it, “Man remains above all a being who seeks the truth and strives to live in that truth, deepening his understanding of it through a dialogue which involves past and future generations.”10 The proposal of truth also allows us to love, because the more we know about something and especially someone love-worthy, the more we can freely love them. Because truth frees and unites and impassions us to act well, our lives too can become a Gospel, a story of good news, a book where the world may read the truth. Black and white is the habit of the truth-friars, because these are the colors of reading and writing, of communicating a narrative to the world. And because the munus docendi of Christ is shared most fully with the bishops, they, more than anyone, must be persuaded that the Gospel is truth, that the truth is good news, and that their own lives can be living Gospels.

Episcopal Preaching | 93

E VA N G E L I Z I N G T H E C U LT U R E ( S ) When Cardinal Norman Gilroy, of whom I spoke in chapter 5, arrived back from chairing parts of the Second Vatican Council, a swarm of reporters greeted him on the tarmac at Sydney airport. Asked what he thought was the biggest problem in the modern world, they presumed he would answer “the bomb,” “over-population,” or “the environmental question.” Instead, he said, clear as a bell, “mortal sin”! He was right, of course, even if he was also being deliberately provocative. In the end, much more important than the issues we faddishly tag the crises of our day is the question of whether any of us will get to heaven and whether, in the meantime, we are willing to work with Christ in building up his kingdom, rather than reducing it to hell on earth. In Australia, we think of ourselves as not as secular as Brits, Germans, or Northern Europeans, but not as religious as people in the U.S. So people were surprised when Pope Paul VI, at our first papal Mass in Australia, cautioned that in Australia “there is a danger of reducing everything to an earthly humanism, to forget life’s moral and spiritual dimension, and to stop caring about our necessary relationship with the Creator.”11 Later Pope John Paul II said “practical indifference to religious truths and values clouds the face of divine love” in Australia.12 And in 2005 it was Pope Benedict’s turn to say that Australia was amongst the most rapidly secularizing cultures in the world,13 which suggests he chose Sydney for the 2008 World Youth Day not because of its tourist attractions but because it was a culture in need of spiritual therapy. In Evangelii nuntiandi, Paul VI famously described the “split between Gospel and culture” as the great drama of our times. He taught that: The Church evangelizes when she seeks to convert, solely through the divine power of the message she proclaims, the personal and collective consciences of people, the activities in which they engage, and the lives and concrete milieux which are theirs. . . . It is not just a question of preaching the Gospel in ever-wider geographic areas or to ever-greater numbers of people, but also of affecting . . . challenging, through the power

94 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

of the Gospel, mankind’s criteria of judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines of thought, sources of inspiration, and models of life, which are in contrast with the Word of God and the plan of salvation. Every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelization of culture, or more correctly of cultures.14

That call has been echoed many times by subsequent popes in their encyclicals and addresses on the new evangelization; much of their gifts and rhetoric have been devoted to that task. One of the greatest treatments of the new evangelization was addressed to the church in the Americas, on the eve of the Great Jubilee Year 2000. The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America (1999) marked the fifth centenary of that great missionary endeavor to the Americas that followed Columbus’s landing, with which this chapter opened. In that document St. John Paul II celebrated the joyful, fraternal, and collegial spirit found amongst the bishops of this region.15 But he also recognized some big challenges going forward, to some of which we will return in “Concluding Reflections” at the end of this book. Pope Francis reprised many of the same themes in his exhortation Evangelii gaudium.16 E P I S C O PA L P R E A C H I N G When the Dominicans were still new kids on the block, their detractors complained about their very name,“Order of Preachers.” After all, in the medieval period bishops were still the only ordinary preachers: priests, if they preached at all, often read sermons sent by the bishop or taken from the fathers and other reliable sources; they were like extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion but with respect to the Word. Only bishops preached by virtue of office rather than by delegation and license. So, who were these guys claiming to be the Order of Preachers? Were all the members bishops?, the cynics asked. Well, as a diocesan priest pointed out to me when I was considering my vocation,“They’re the Order of Preachers, sure, relentless preachers maybe, but no one ever accused them of being the order of good preachers. But then, the Sisters of Mercy are merci-

Episcopal Preaching | 95

less and the Sisters of Charity have got none, so they’re in good company.” From the beginning of the order, the Dominicans have theorized about preaching—about its theology, practice, and spirituality. Tellingly, though, St. Dominic himself is only rarely portrayed in the order’s iconography in the process of preaching. Blessed Fra Angelico most often paints him meditating on the scriptures beneath Christ mocked or hanging onto Christ pinned to the cross or peeping in at the annunciation from the side. If the church, peeping in from the side, are the “members” of Christ’s mystical body,17 the preachers are the voice-box. Whatever his personal difficulties and issues, however high or low his morale, what is best for the preacher, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere: to contemplate the sacred mysteries and share the fruits of that contemplation with others. Preaching is the antidote to isolation, self-satisfaction, and self-pity: for it takes the preacher out of himself and exposes him to a world sometimes hostile, sometimes welcoming, mostly indifferent. Preaching demands he make the joys and griefs of the people of the time his own. In Baroque depictions of God the Father, he is often portrayed as surrounded by angels, with the putti sometimes even playing with his beard and toes. He gazes serenely upon the unfolding story of creation or redemption. These works serve to convey God’s bounty overflowing from heaven, inundating humanity with grace and mercy. The first acts of creation and redemption are seen from the perspective of their successful conclusion, and preaching, likewise, takes such a timeless angle on things, even as it brings that universal and eternal into contact with very particular people and their needs. The reasons and ways bishops preach are not so different from others. But episcopal preaching must be impressed first and foremost by the four marks of the church they lead. The church is One, and so bishops must preach the one Word of God found in sacred scripture and sacred tradition and give witness to Christ as head of that one church. And while there is one pope, there are many bishops, and so they have the responsibility of preaching as one,

96 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

collegially, synodally, not in opposition to each other. As we saw in chapter 4, that doesn’t mean bishops all think the same, or preach the same homily, or have the same style. Jesus chose twelve apostles to begin with, and if their range of questions and arguments are anything to go by, they thought very differently from each other on many matters. But they preached the one Gospel. In chapter 5, we saw that amidst dangers of individualism and isolation, bishops are challenged to strengthen unity with the Lord, with the Holy Father, with each other as bishops, and with their clergy and faithful. That unity must show in their words. Bishops are essentially ecclesial men, and if the church is one, bishop-preachers must be one also. The church is one: it is also Holy. Bishops must sanctify by their preaching, not just their sacraments. Their words must raise hearts and minds to God. In an increasingly secular world, preaching must be being unashamedly spiritual, recognizing anything that is true, by whomsoever spoken, as from the Holy Spirit,18 but not acquiescing in the spirit of the age, and with a view to conversion. “Repent and believe the Good News” were Jesus’ first recorded public words, along with “Come follow me”; both were also his last words to Peter. “Convert to the Gospel and follow Jesus” must be our first and last words also. The church is also Catholic. It is the most democratic of faiths: a religion of the people, for the people, and by the people, a church made up of people of every tribe and tongue, race and nation, a church that even gives “the vote” to generations that have gone before us through her sacred tradition. And if the church is made up of all the people, it is for every person and so must be fundamentally missionary. So must be our preaching: missionary in outreach to every ear. And it must draw others into the mission, so that it is ultimately the mission not just of the apostles and their successors but of all the church, all humanity. One, holy, catholic, and Apostolic. Bishops are, as the present book has emphasized, apostles for our day. Their preaching is not the invention of a private spirituality or reinvention of the church’s faith: it is the apparently less imaginative but ultimately much richer preaching of the apostolic tradition. Bishops are runners in a relay race handing on a baton. They are privileged to have

Episcopal Preaching | 97

received it originally from Christ, through the apostles, down the centuries through saints and scholars, extraordinary and more mediocre bishops, a long line of runners, often weak and of little merit save that they tried to be faithful. P R E A C H I N G A S T H E B I S H O P ’ S P R I N C I PA L S P I R I T UA L W O R K O F M E R C Y Preaching per se is not included in the traditional lists of spiritual works of mercy, yet that is surely what it is, and I would argue it is the bishop’s principal spiritual work of mercy. Good preaching combines the mercy-works of counseling the doubtful, instructing the ignorant, admonishing the sinner, and comforting the sorrowful— as well as encouraging hearers to forgive injuries, bear wrongs patiently, and pray for the living and the dead. It is far from clear that St. Dominic, though founder of the Order of Preachers, was much good as a preacher himself. From that century of great preachers many homilies survive, including many by Sts. Francis, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and others. There is not one of Dominic’s: no one, it seems, thought them worth preserving. The friars love to retell the story of how Dominic converted an Albigensian hotelkeeper by talking to him (and perhaps drinking with him) all night until at dawn he converted—whether out of conviction, inebriation, or sheer exhaustion! Perhaps the story is retold to excuse time spent in bars. But another reason would seem to be that it is a rare story of Dominic’s preaching being successful. In the generations that followed, however, there were many great preachers amongst the order’s friars and its women, as well. Dominic’s genius was to gather and form them to that end, supported by community, prayer, and a rule of life, and send them forth with a single task: preaching to save souls. With typical Spanish extravagance, Dominic said he would willingly go to hell if he could with his body block the door to anyone else’s entry. He wept many tears for sinners. But rather than forcing people at the point of the sword, as his colleague Simon de Montfort did, he thought it best to preach them into faith and heaven.

98 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

The preacher, then, is dedicated to the salvation of souls, to becoming the instrument of God’s mercy for the world. This informs both his own prayer life and the content and means of his preaching: receptivity to God’s gracious annunciation of the Word, of the incarnation and redemption, and the extension of that revelation, embodiment, and redemption to others. The thirteenth-century Master-General of the Dominican Order, Humbert of Romans, whose thoughts on St. Albert becoming a bishop were reported in chapter 1, wrote in his Treatise on Preaching of the “unavoidable sins of the preacher.” No preacher is sinless, apart from Christ Our Lord. No one lives up to the glory he preaches. Yet that should not deter the preacher from bringing saving Truth to others. Apart from occasioning tears of penitence— for the preacher preaches first to himself—the recognition of personal sin ought to inspire diligence in the preparation of sermons and humility in their delivery. Preaching can be confessional, both in the sense of proclaiming the faith that we confess and in the sense of exposing the sinner who preaches. Yet it must not be selfcentered or idiosyncratic. Our task, Humbert said, is purely and simply to preach the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel. Not our own opinions. Not just our favorite bits. Not just the parts most comfortable to our hearers. The Gospel, whole, entire, unadulterated: a heart of mercy requires that. Much is made these days of practicing what you preach and not being a hypocrite. This is good if it encourages ongoing conversion in preacher-bishops. There is a story about a Jewish rabbi who was discovered in flagrante delicto with a lady of the synagogue, not his wife. The committee of the synagogue summoned him and announced they had decided to cut his salary by one-tenth. When he asked why, they told him that he was one-tenth less useful, since he could now only preach with any credibility about nine of the Ten Commandments. If bishops only preached those commandments and mysteries we perfectly exemplified, then our pay would probably decline more than 10 percent! But there is consolation in the thought that the Word of God, Jesus the Sinless One, preaches himself through his preachers, and even despite them, for they are only his imperfect instruments. But since preachers preach first to

Episcopal Preaching | 99

themselves, they are hopefully affected by the Word also. In Evangelii gaudium Pope Francis acknowledged that preachers are not without their intellectual or character flaws and insisted that what is asked of us is that we keep advancing along the path of the Gospel.19 “The Lord wants to make use of us as living, free, and creative beings, who let his word enter our own hearts before then passing it on to others.”20 Fr. Gabriele Amorth, SSP, the famous if controversial Roman exorcist, once claimed that the Devil hates preachers even more than he hates exorcists. A preacher, after all, teaches truth, corrects error, and encourages conversion in many people at once, while an exorcist only deals with souls one at a time. It’s hard sometimes to reconcile this mighty ministry with a felt (or should be felt) lack of virtue, wisdom, or eloquence. But do bishops give enough attention to the hard slog of remote and immediate preparation for writing homilies in the study of the sacred page and of good theology? Or do they rely rather too much on their research assistants and the legacy of their many years with the same texts? This is only part of the problem, though. As I observed in chapter 4, our world is filled with noise and words, often transient, trivial sound. Finding the right words, in a sea of meaningless verbiage, to express God’s Word requires a great deal of zeal and imagination, on the part of the congregation as well as the preacher. As a young priest the Curé of Ars—not a Dominican—slaved over the preparation of his sermons. He wrote them out in full on the sacristy bench and went to the high altar to pray when he needed inspiration. Having completed them he would commit them to memory word by word. He drew heavily upon the standard seminary manuals, and his sermons consequently reflect the concerns of his own time: dancing (a terrible evil: this was the era of the can-can), drinking (also nasty), and especially sexual immorality (which was commonly the result of drinking and dancing!). He managed to have something unpleasant but true to say to everyone in the congregation. And you couldn’t even sleep through his sermons: Jean Vianney was said to shout his sermons very loudly. He was the kind of priest bishops today receive letters of complaint about for being pastorally insensitive.

100 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

No one ever accused the young Jean Vianney of being a good preacher. He broke many of the rules for preaching, even by his day’s standards, let alone for ours, such as preaching for around a hundred minutes—quite a feat for a supposed “dummy” who had committed his homily to memory. Sadly, this meant his train of thought was frequently derailed and took some time to get back on the rails, if it did at all. He was so severe that some thought he had Jansenist tendencies. One of his brother priests, who had safekeeping of about twenty of the saint’s long homilies, disposed of them because he didn’t think anyone would be interested. When Jean began to preach more ex tempore, however, abandoning his youthful severity and over-thinking and relying both on his years of preparation and the grace of preaching, his words came to life and began really to hit home. As a frail old man speaking from the pulpit in faltering tones about the love of God, he often reduced the whole church to tears of tenderness and penitence. We can compare the preaching of this saint to that of his contemporary with whom this chapter opened, St. John Henry Newman. Newman coaxed and cajoled his listeners, pointing to the beauty of the church and its teaching, secure in the conviction that the Truth, once announced, attracted all but the basest of minds. His was a soul that rested peacefully in that Truth, inviting others into its tranquil harbor. You could not imagine Newman shouting at a congregation the way Vianney did, yet both were evidently holy, both had a massive influence on the church of their time, and both have spoken to the church ever since. In Evangelii gaudium Pope Francis made some observations regarding homiletics that obviously apply to bishops as much as parish clergy. Christ called the twelve he wanted to himself and appointed them “to be with him and to be sent out to preach” (Mk 3:13–14); he called subsequent generations of bishops to himself also, and appointed them to be with him and to preach, so that through them and their collaborators all nations would be brought to the bosom of the church (cf. Mt 16:15–20).21 God reaches out to others through the preacher and “displays his power through human words.”22 Pope Francis suggests that the homily can “be an intense and happy experience of the Spirit, a consoling encounter

Episcopal Preaching | 101

with God’s word, a constant source of renewal and growth.”23 It should not be an entertainment, nor an academic lecture, but something that guides the hearers—and the preacher himself— to a life-changing communion with Christ in the Eucharist; the attention must be on the Lord, not the minister.24 “The preacher has the wonderful but difficult task of joining loving hearts, the hearts of the Lord and his people.”25 Preaching that is merely exegetical, moralistic, or doctrinaire, made up of abstract truths or cold syllogisms, lacks such heart-to-heart communication; preachers should rather aspire to communicate Catholic truth, beauty, goodness, and love through the medium of words; in this way the hearers will experience each word of scripture as a gift before it is a demand, a magnet more than a slap.26 Pope Francis judges unprepared homilies as disrespectful, irresponsible, and unspiritual.27 Preparation for preaching requires a deep reverence for truth, for the word of God of which “we are neither masters or owners, but guardians, heralds and servants” and so demands “a prolonged time of study, prayer, reflection, and pastoral creativity.”28 Preparation for preaching requires a prayerful, discerning reading of the passages given in the lectionary, a reliance upon the church’s teaching tradition and sound scripture scholarship, an ear to the needs, thoughts, and aspirations of the people being addressed, “a docile and prayerful heart,” and a lived scriptural faith.29 The preacher should communicate the sort of joy that clearly gripped our Lord when he talked to his people, the kind of love that inspired the three Johns—the Apostle, Vianney, and Newman.30 “ B R EV I T Y I S T H E SOU L O F W I T ” BUT FIDELIT Y THE SOUL OF PREACHING Of course, examples from the past can be a double-edged sword. Much has changed over the last two centuries, and those who lament that their clergy don’t preach like the three Johns should bear in mind that, by and large, a modern congregation won’t sit still for much more than twenty minutes. Were Vianney a curé today, he’d be written off by some as boorish, judgmental, fundamentalist;

102 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

were Newman, he’d probably be tagged highfalutin’ and elitist. Times change. In the book of Nehemiah, it is reported that after rebuilding Jerusalem’s fortifications and receiving back the exiles from Babylon, the people gathered on the Dies Domini in the square before the Water Gate.31 Ezra the priest-scholar mounted a platform and read aloud from the Torah from early in the morning until noon, with all listening attentively. After six hours of the lectionary, there came a good long homily from Ezra and his accompanying clergy explaining and expanding upon the text. By the end of it all the whole congregation were in tears—whether of penitence or exhaustion—and the clergy had to remind the people to cheer up, for this was the day of the Lord! In the Acts of the Apostles is recorded the story of a young man of Troas named Eutychus, who was amongst those who went to a “Mass” celebrated by St. Paul on a Sunday night.32 Before the “Breaking of the Bread” Paul gave a prolonged homily—lasting until midnight—and the youth fell into such a deep sleep that he fell off the third-story window ledge on which he was sitting. Fortunately, Paul was at hand to raise him from the dead, but, having done so, he returned to Break the Bread and then offer a post-Communion fervorino that lasted “for a long while, until daybreak.” St. Luke wryly records that the people “were not a little comforted”—though whether that was because the boy survived or because Paul had finally finished and left for Miletus, we are not told. Homilies were not always so long. By the time of Charles II’s reign, when the great preacher Isaac Burrow preached to the Lord Mayor and aldermen about charity, the sermon was a mere threeand-a-half hours’ duration. On one occasion when Burrows was preaching at length in Westminster Abbey, however, the dean cut him short by directing the organist to start playing. In the next century hourglasses were built into pulpits to keep preachers to the hour, though some were known to turn the glass over at the end of the first hour and say, “Let’s have another glass.” In the eighteenth century, Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin records in his book The Physiology of Taste that one well-thought-of preacher in Paris would stop every so often during his longer instructions to consume a pickled walnut and allow his congregation a short

Episcopal Preaching | 103

toilet break. He also records a difference of opinion over whether ladies should be allowed to have their maids bring them cups of hot chocolate during especially long sermons in cold churches. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that homilies were typically cut to around half an hour, partly under the influence of Queen Victoria, who had a short attention span, especially when it came to matters theological. Pope Francis also favors shorter rather than longer homilies.33 Perhaps the most pastorally corrosive attitude to preaching on the part of a preacher, however, is not the inclination to preach too long or too deeply for his congregation to bear, but the inclination to think it really doesn’t matter how or what we preach. After all, we’ve got the liturgy to carry us: it is the Protestants who must rely on the sermon. What’s more, many of us have had the experience of putting in long preparation to make brilliant points, only to find they fall flat; at other times, we’ve had little or no time to prepare and even less inspiration and find what we say has more impact. So, we might be inclined to say: why bother? Unfortunately, people pick up the “why bother” very quickly if it is there in our preaching. And they might well start to ask the same question. Then, there is the kind of preacher who turns the homily, or even the whole Mass, into a kind of “look at me, look at me” vaudeville show. A frustrated stage entertainer, he might try anything from clown suits to cartwheels on the sanctuary to gain attention. Any vestment or combination of vestments, any prayer or reading or combination of both, any place or furnishings, might be tried, as long as they are not the ones customary in the church. Novelty is all; boredom is the enemy. Each Mass is in competition with the previous one, each liturgist with the other, each homilist with the next, for being the most memorable. At least until the same time, same place, next week, when something really new will be attempted! Now don’t get me wrong: there is a range of legitimate liturgical variety, and people should try to make the homily and the rest of the liturgy welcoming and engaging. There is also a lot to be said for street theatre as an evangelical tool—provided it stays on the street. But we must never lose sight of the fact that the saving Word of God can change lives by its own power, on its,

104 |

L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y

indeed his own merits, without the benefit of razzamatazz à la the musical movie Chicago. Thus the summons of Christ to good-better-best must sound in all the bishop’s words. He must explain which attitudes or actions are contrary to faith and reason, and why, and which ones are better, and why. He must call unashamedly for conversion, not just of outward activity, but also of attitudes, lifestyles, worldviews, cultures, and institutions. In short, we need to demonstrate to our people that we actually believe what Christ and the church teaches because it is true and are prepared to propound and defend it usque ad mortem. If the annunciation, incarnation, passion, and resurrection are to mean anything in our ministerial lives, the Incarnate and Resurrected One must be present in our preaching, bringing grace and mercy. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but fidelity is the soul of preaching. CONCLUSION Preaching is a topic about which the present writer could wax as long and lyrical as Ezra, Paul, or Jean Vianney! But to conclude this chapter: preaching for those with the munus docendi begins with a commitment to truth: a belief that one has something to say, something good for others to hear, and a willingness to be a living testament to that truth. That doesn’t mean getting to the truth or expressing it is always easy. Or that what it says will be personally comfortable for us or welcomed by others. Just ask the martyrs! Yet sacred truth is in the end what frees, unites, and impassions: it turns human companionship into spiritual communion. In rapidly secularizing cultures, much of our preaching effort must be directed not just at individual souls but at the institutions and ideas that form them. In Evangelii nuntiandi, Ecclesia in America, and Evangelii gaudium the bishops are called to be major players in healing the great split between the Gospel and culture. Building on the strengths of the church in their region and aware of the challenges, bishops must be builders and guardians of communion, agents of mission, discerners of local pastoral needs, and brothers to Christ and each other in their evangelizing

Episcopal Preaching | 105

efforts. Preaching must allow God to reach out to the hearers through the preacher and display God’s power through words consoling and challenging, speaking heart to heart. That requires of bishops fidelity to the word and tradition, careful preparation, docile and prayerful hearts, living faith. Episcopal preaching must be striped with the marks of the church: oneness, holiness, Catholicity, and apostolicity. Preaching, I have suggested in this chapter, is the bishop’s principal spiritual work of mercy. It must be impassioned by Christ’s thirst for souls. Whatever their inadequacies, bishops must preach the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel. Even if they never reduce a whole church to tears of tenderness and penitence like the curé of Ars or raise them to theological heights like Newman, they can imitate Jean and John Henry in their fidelity. Bishops must be heralds of Christ’s summons to fraternity and communio, calling all to conversion, starting with themselves and each other. And so, with the Apostle Paul to Timothy: I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around themselves teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, and discharge all the duties of your ministry.34

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

T H E S TAT E O F T H E C O M M U N I O N A F T E R R O E V. WA D E WA S O V E R T U R N E D

A

s an Australian addressing a special assembly of the U.S. Bishops, I was in no position to give an accurate “state of the communion address” regarding the church in the U.S.A., but I did offer some very provisional reflections. In chapter 6 I touched upon Pope St. John Paul II’s exhortation, which followed the Synod on the Americas and which has many echoes in Pope Francis’s Evangelii gaudium. Beginning with the Gospel stories of Jesus’ meetings with the men and women of his day, the two popes highlighted the transforming power of those encounters with Jesus.1 Christians want to bring everyone to such an experience, so they might share in the riches of personal faith, social friendship, and supernatural communion.2 Amongst the privileged places of such encounter the documents identify: scripture, read in the light of tradition and the recent magisterium; the sacred liturgy, extended through private prayer and meditation; and “the face of every human being, especially when marked by tears and suffering.”3 In each case the call must be to individual μετάνοια, through catechesis and formation, prayer and penance, a life of outreach to others in need, and to communal conversion through evangelization of culture, media, education, law, and more.4 What is it that we bring to this task? Amongst the spiritual strengths of the church in the U.S. identified in the documents are: a Christian history and identity over five centuries; popular piety fed by Western, Indigenous, African American, and Eastern Catholic cultures; relatively high rates of affiliation and practice; church institutions making vast contributions to education, healthcare, welfare, and pastoral care; and a surrounding culture and democratic institutions that both carry and obstruct the Gospel and presume a Christian inheritance.5 Then there are the U.S.A.’s many political-diplomatic-military strengths, its diversity and creativity, 107

108 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

its enormous population and economy, its intellectual and cultural resources—so much potential. The USCCB is strong and active on many fronts, as are the dioceses and parishes. The U.S. church has many strengths; those from elsewhere will readily identify the strengths of the church in their own land. On the other hand, the United States faces challenges such as: rapid secularization and relativism; declining rates of religious affiliation and practice; large economic divides and significant numbers in poverty; healthcare and welfare to which some have limited access; deep political and cultural polarization in many areas; damaged credibility of the church after the child sexual abuse crisis; a geographic proneness to weather disasters and a cultural proneness to social disasters (such as family breakdown, crime, drugs, debt, and staggering rates of abortion).6 What will the political, judicial, and cultural landscape be like now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned and once the hue and cry have subsided? Well, first, let this outsider say what an achievement its correction is: where much of the world acquiesced long ago to the zeitgeist regarding abortion, Americans to their credit continued to question the morality of the practice, as well as its legal basis, due in no small part to Catholic Church leadership. But no one pretends that overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the responsibility for abortion laws to the states is enough. It is the close of a long chapter and the beginning of a new one that must be better written than the last. Whatever contributions the U.S. church can make to new thinking around these issues, or to new action to make demand for abortion less, to a new settlement that does not endlessly relitigate, relegislate, and recontest this issue, to a new civility and better treatment of all, will depend in part on whether it can strengthen that fraternity and communio we have been reflecting upon through this book. Communion was a central theme of Ecclesia in America, Evangelii gaudium, and so many magisterial documents since Lumen gentium.7 Christian faith, these documents remind us, is in a God who is communion, three distinct Persons united as one Trinity; through the One who joined our human lot, the church is the sacrament of that communion; a fraternal spirit

Concluding Reflections | 109

should thus characterize Christians in every time and place. Communion is expressed in a welcoming and fraternal spirit in parishes, in the sacraments of initiation, and the sacred liturgies thereafter, especially the Eucharist, in pastoral planning and parish renewal, in welcome and care of migrants including those migrating from the womb to the world or from poverty to hope, and in ecumenical dialogue with other Christians, in the help priests offer each other, in promotion of vocations, in outreach to the poor and outcast, and in Christian action to ensure just social, political, and economic structures that support peace, including for the unborn.8 The documents highlight the role of bishops as guardians of ecclesial communion through preserving the deposit of faith and maintaining communion with each other and with Peter; their mission as agents of the new evangelization and discerners of local pastoral needs; and their role as builders of communion within the diversity of their local church, including amongst the clergy. The two exhortations recognized the importance of creating and maintaining “an atmosphere of fraternal encounter” between the bishops through meeting together, praying together, strengthening relationships with the Eastern churches and with other dioceses, and engaging with the episcopal conference and its committees, with the church in other nations, and with the Roman curia.9 If they cannot witness to civility, mutual respect, and care “at home” amongst themselves, it is hard to see how church leaders can offer society a way out of the sloganeering, screaming matches, trolling, and deplatforming that has been substituted for discourse and dialogue in recent years, or out of the violent, throw-away mentality of the abortion pandemic. But let’s face it: there are some real divisions in our world at present, and not just about abortion. Nations are at war, countries sanctioning each other, the rhetoric shrill. The U.S. has been and is going through a very bruising period in politics and is more polarized than usual. We are still not out of the woods with COVID, and post-Covid traumatic stress plays out in various ways. And there are divisions in the church, for or against particular personalities, factions, doctrines, and policies. Where some say they mostly experienced magnanimity, mutuality, and compromise in the past,

110 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

the bishops now often feel at odds, factionalized, unwilling entrants in a kind of ecclesiastical Hunger Games. The divisions in the wider culture have invaded the church, as if there were red bishops and blue bishops, for Paul or for Apollos. Lobby groups, publications, and blogs target and cow some, praise and champion others. Some are ready performers in these gladiatorial games, others hide from the limelight altogether. If we are ever to overcome or at least manage these difficult divisions, we can’t sugar-coat any of this or pretend there are no differences. Willful blindness and make-believe will not do; as we saw in chapter 6, truth is too important for Christians. A first step toward doing something about it is to acknowledge that our fraternity is sometimes fractured, our communion always imperfect. Where next? BACK TO THE SOURCE OF COMMUNIO This book began by recalling the fraternity amongst the apostolic generation, founded upon a common relationship to Christ, a common call, response, and experiences. After the ascension they were “at one” with him still, through shared prayer, preaching, healings, shepherding, and suffering. There were tensions at times, some serious. The Council of Jerusalem and the pastoral letters of the early church were two models for addressing these. What mattered in the end was whether Christ was known and loved. Communion, it turned out, was not something achieved once and for all by his saving death or by our first encounter with him in word and sacrament. It is a grace that must be repeatedly renewed and a state that must be constantly worked at, in cultivating character, receiving sacraments, conforming ourselves to Christ, fulfilling our role in the church. In chapter 2 we saw some snapshots of episcopal fraternity and communio at various stages in the tradition. I concluded that the early Christians looked to the bishops as alteri Christi and successors of the apostles to unite them in the truth. As transmitters of the tradition to which they are also subject and instruments of a unity they must first evidence amongst themselves, the bishops

Concluding Reflections | 111

enable communio between the faithful, the churches, and ultimately with God. In this conclusion I would like to consider an example of such episcopal friendship from the patristic era. They came from families full of saints.10 Basil (“the Great,” of Caesarea), his brother Gregory (of Nyssa), and their friend Gregory (from Nazianzus, known as “the Theologian”), are remembered in the West as “the Cappadocian fathers” and in the East as “the three holy hierarchs” for their command of Greek philosophy, JudeoChristian scripture, and Catholic theology. They helped clarify Catholic teaching on Christ and the Trinity, fought off the Arian and Apollinarian alternatives, and became the standard of orthodoxy for centuries. More importantly for present purposes, their natural friendship and vocational fraternity grounded a communion that mostly served them and the church very well, even if it was sorely tested at times. Let me recall a little about their lives. Bazza and Nazza (as we would call them in Australia) met at a local “high school” in Cappadocian Caesarea (347 A.D.) and met up again at the “university” of Athens (349–56). They took a room together, studied classics and rhetoric, and developed what Gregory described as “a patent blaze of friendship.”11 The two admired each other’s faith, intellect, and character and sought to improve themselves and each other in these respects; both sought to reconcile a passion for philosophy with their Christian faith; both were “discerning their vocation” and resolved in the meantime to live as philosophical ascetics. Gregory later described their adolescent feelings as being “wounded with love” for one another,“eternally bonded,”“a single soul in two bodies.”12 Basil, less effusive, nonetheless described his friend as “our most divinely beloved brother Gregory.”13 But these best of mates were separated when Basil suddenly announced he was dropping the university life and heading off on a tour of monasteries. The desolate Gregory returned to Cappadocia, where his father, the bishop, forcibly ordained him a priest (361).14 Increasingly embroiled in ecclesiastical politics and doctrinal disputes, Gregory escaped to Basil’s monastery at Pontus, and there they coauthored the Philokalia of Origen, a spiritual classic of Eastern Christianity.15

112 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

But Gregory’s father was charged with heresy by the local monks, and Basil sent Gregory home to clarify things doctrinally and pour oil on troubled waters. He achieved that task, as Basil knew he would, and then contended with the emperor Julian the Apostate.16 Gregory also engineered a reconciliation between Basil and his Archbishop Eusebius (of Caesarea, 365 A.D.). The rocky adolescent friendship now matured as the two engaged in a kind of doctrinal tag-team wrestling with the Arians. Through a series of publications and in formal debates before the emperor Valens, the two emerged triumphant. Meanwhile, Basil was earning a reputation not just for orthodoxy but for monastic and liturgical reform and for founding philanthropic institutions. When Eusebius died, he moved quickly to secure his own election as metropolitan archbishop in the year 370. Gregory was shocked by his friend’s ambition, but agreed he was the best man for the job and rallied the necessary votes for him.17 The new archbishop was anxious about the churches “constantly drifting apart” and passionately defended the tangible unity of the church against doctrinal splits.18 Unity was to be built upon the orthodox faith and actively defended by the bishops, against the Devil, the sower of disunity, and his witting or unwitting allies.19 To shore up support for the Nicaean party in his fifty or so sees in his region, Basil moved quickly to appoint reliable suffragans, including his brother Gregory, to Nyssa and his friend Gregory, to Sasima (372).20 As with priesthood, so now with episcopacy, Gregory was ambivalent at best,21 and soon realized that the diocese Basil had allocated to him was—to quote him—“an utterly dreadful, pokey little hole; a paltry horse-stop on the main road ... devoid of water, vegetation, or the company of gentlemen. All dust and noise and wagons, wailing and lamentation, magistrates and implements of torture . . . a population of foreigners and migrants only.”22 The relationship with Basil soured after that appointment, with Gregory saying that in the church you can’t even trust your friends!23 He abandoned his diocese, returned to Nazianzus, and played auxiliary to his dying father. He preached powerful homilies, wrote spiritual poems, and retired to a monastery in

Concluding Reflections | 113

Seleukia sometime around 375–79. Basil was, to say the least, displeased, but Gregory now separated in his mind Basil the sacred ecclesiastic (whom he honored) and Basil the secular man (whom he resisted).24 It was now Gregory’s turn to manipulate Basil, provoking him into declaring himself openly for Gregory’s position that the Holy Spirit was the equal of the Father and the Son in every way.25 So, while their estrangement had not entirely healed as Basil lay dying in 379, there had been a practical rapprochement through common evangelizing endeavors. As the less sentimental Basil had said,“A good deed is never wasted; he who sows courtesy reaps friendship, and he who plants kindness gathers love. . . . And the mark of love is this: not to seek what is for your own benefit, but what is for the benefit of the one loved, both in body and in soul.”26 From his deathbed, Basil advised the new emperor Theodosius and the orthodox community in Constantinople that if anyone could win the Arian majority in New Rome over to the Nicene cause, it was surely Gregory.27 His orations proved so persuasive that he was soon known as “The Theologian,” and the heretics feared for their future.28 At the Easter vigil that Gregory was celebrating in an “underground” church, an Arian mob broke in, wounding him and killing a concelebrating bishop.29 This cost the heretics much of their popular support. Amidst continuing disturbance but with the support of Theodosius, Gregory was now elected archbishop of Constantinople by popular acclaim and enthroned in 380.30 Even from the grave Basil, who had engineered Gregory’s trip to Byzantium in the first place, seemed to be shaping the course of his friend’s life. The following year Archbishop Gregory presided over the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I, which raised Constantinople and therefore Gregory to the status of patriarch and effected the completion of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the insertion (against the Arians) of the article on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. But the Egyptian bishops refused to acknowledge Gregory’s authority, and knowing that leading prelates is like herding cats, Gregory dramatically resigned both as Council president and patriarch. In his farewell address, he

114 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

decried the partisanship of the bishops.31 The Theologian retired once more, living out his days producing more polemics, poems, and an Apologia Pro Vita Sua (382).32 In his treatment of their friendship, John Manoussakis concludes, “In contrast, then, to Aristotle’s speculation that virtuous friends would not quarrel and that friends should spend their time together, Basil and Gregory remain friends despite their disagreements and the distance from each other in which they lived their separate lives.”33 Gregory delivered a moving encomium for Basil, wrote a heartfelt letter of condolence to his sainted brother of Nyssa, and composed twelve memorial poems for his lost friend.34 In 1568 Pope St. Pius V, as a tribute to their friendship, proclaimed Basil and Gregory doctors of the church in the same act and gave them a common feast day: having been reconciled in the heavenly liturgy, they would now be celebrated together in the earthly one. Gregory contributed to the pastoral theology of the episcopacy and the priesthood.35 He critiqued the lack of love amongst the ecclesiastics of his day, their arrogance, factionalism, and “whoring with their own inventions.”36 He argued that because their ideas, character, and behavior will infect their people, bishops should be chosen for their godliness, orthodoxy, and experience and, after ordination, continue to purify their minds and hearts and cultivate doctrine and virtue.37 Study and contemplation, along with other asceticisms, are essential. Administration must not swamp the bishop’s primary roles as soul of his flock, physician of their hearts, devoted to their deification.38 The bishop must adapt himself and his words to the needs, gifts, and temperaments of the faithful.39 And he must be a reconciler, embodying “the paradox of stability and flexibility, of simplicity and multiplicity, in order best to guide the moral and spiritual development of the flock.”40 Thus, in his oration On Moderation in Theological Argument, Gregory combined the classical golden mean with the Gospel ideal of love even of enemies, in describing how bishops should engage with each other and their people.41 To summarize: Many writers have reflected upon what is arguably the most famous episcopal friendship after that of the apostles—that between Basil and Gregory.42 Their relationship greatly

Concluding Reflections | 115

influenced their personalities, teachings, and careers. They show that friendship between bishops can be at once deeply personal and ecclesiastical-political; that it can survive some serious tensions and disagreements; that natural friendship can be the springboard for spiritual and ecclesial communion; and that spiritual communion with God can in turn be an incentive to reconciliation, friendship, and ultimately communion with other believers. There are many challenges and encouragements here for bishops even today. F R AT E R N A L C O R R E C T I O N We all know St. Thomas Aquinas’s famous teaching on the just war.43 Interestingly, he treats war in the De Caritate, his tract on love in the Summa theologiae, not under justice as we might expect. That is not to romanticize war, let alone to accept that “all’s fair in love and war”: quite the opposite. On Aquinas’s account, what makes most wars immoral is that they are hateful: people have the wrong reasons to fight, or the wrong motives, or they fight in the wrong ways, because they are driven by self-aggrandizement or cruelty. A just war, however, will be prosecuted in the hope of securing peace and of eventually rebuilding friendship with the enemy. It is an act of love to defend oneself, one’s loved ones, or one’s country from aggressors, but it is also an act of spiritual kindness toward an enemy to try to stop him waging unjust war, even using force to disarm him. But once disarmed, he is not to be further hurt, as that would prove that the real motive is violence and hate. Building on St. Augustine, St. Thomas started a long and rich tradition that might better be called “loving war theory” rather than “just war theory.” Something similar is going on in his treatment of fraternal correction earlier in the De Caritate of the Summa, as well as in his Disputed Questions.44 His point of departure is scripture. In Proverbs we are told, “The Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.”45 The prophet Ezekiel is told: Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say of the wicked, “O wicked

116 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

one, you shall surely die,” and you do nothing to warn him to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but the blame will be yours. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his wicked ways . . . you will have delivered your soul.46

In Matthew, Jesus says, If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.47

Again, we might have thought correction was part of justice, or even truthfulness, but St. Thomas sees it foremost as part of brotherly love. Often enough correction, like warfare, has the wrong motives, reasons, or methods: it is done out of spite, anger, or control, as a kind of verbal violence or shaming. Some people are enthusiasts for correcting others! In response to such personalities, Thomas says: Unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him. . . . He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former.48

What’s more, St. Thomas argues, there must be room for respectful disagreement, especially on prudential matters, without either side presuming ill will or idiocy on the other. Where correcting another is in order, a truly fraternal act of correction will be done primarily for the good of the person being corrected, and only secondarily for the sake of those his actions are adversely affecting. It is an act of love to try to stop a brother from doing wrong: it may save him

Concluding Reflections | 117

from serious sin and from imperiling his soul. Whatever passing awkwardness this may occasion, the goal is a return to friendship. Prudence must be applied to the question of whether correction will provoke repentance and better behavior—regaining the brother—or only harden their heart, possibly make them the greater sinner and pushing them further away. Although all Christians, animated by charity, should correct others so as to encourage virtue in their soul and actions, Aquinas argues that prelates have a particular responsibility for this because admonishment, teaching, and spiritual works of mercy are pastoral acts.49 This is often best done privately. But where the error is itself public, public correction may be necessary to prevent further scandal.50 St. Thomas notes that Jesus proposed a stepped approach to correction: rather than escalating things from the beginning, approach your brother privately at first, then with witnesses, finally with a public rebuke, with excommunication only ever as a last resort. So, too, “you need to preserve proper distinctions, observing appropriate times, places, and other circumstances, and do everything helpful for reforming your brother, which is the purpose and standard of brotherly correction.”51 So, should bishops correct each other, and if so in what spirit? Apostles or elders reproving each other is envisaged in several places in the New Testament.52 Most famously, St. Paul tells us that: When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”53

Questions of prudence remain about how private or public such correction should be, in what circumstances and tone, and by whom. It should be done with a calm and heavy heart. We saw this

118 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

in the interchange between Bazza and Nazza. Above all, we must remember that it is fraternal correction, aimed at the good of the other and with a view to restoring communion, not punishing or cementing a breach in the relationship. As St. Paul tells Timothy: Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know they only breed quarrels. The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Then God may perhaps grant that the one reproved will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape the devil’s snare.54

SOME SUMMING UP As considered in chapter 2, many in the mediaeval period denied that the bishops were anything special, sacramentally speaking, but St. Albert thought episcopal consecration confers a unique dignity, not with respect to the Eucharistic body but with respect to the ecclesial body. There are some things only bishops can do for the church. His student St. Thomas suggested bishops are paradoxes: imperfect men called to a state of perfection. They can reach great spiritual heights or fall to great depths. This should be humbling and drive them to lean on God, their brother bishops, and others for support. They must help each other cultivate a holy heart, a virtuous will, a well-practiced fraternal charity, and an informed mind. But does the church really need learned bishops? Well, according to St. Thomas, the principal expression of the bishop’s love for his flock is not governance but prophecy, conceived of as contemplation turned to teaching and preaching.55 Here Aquinas follows Gregory the Great on the importance of bishops giving themselves the time and space for serious contemplation and PseudoDionysius on the bishop as “the enlightener in all things pertaining to holy discourses” and protector of the flock against falling into doctrinal quagmires.56 As masters of sacred doctrine, bishops must have a deeper knowledge of scripture, church teaching, and canon law than ordinary priests. Thus, Thomas counted it seriously sinful to appoint a prelate because of his political position or personal

Concluding Reflections | 119

connections rather than his abilities as a teacher-pastor.57 He recommended that bishops study the Word of God rather than “fables or temporal banalities” or “profane and vain babblings.”58 (I’m not sure he’d approve of me watching sci-fi movies, or even of me reading some of the papers we get for bishops’ conferences.) And he says bishops should study the Word, not just so they can get useful lines for our homilies and pastoral letters, but (more importantly) so they nourish their souls and become living Gospels themselves.59 Thomas’s teaching about the priority of teaching in the mission of the bishop, even over governing and sanctifying, was followed by the councils of Trent and Vatican II in the following centuries.60 In chapters 4 and 6 I focused on the truth that bishops seek in contemplation and then share in their munus docendi. It begins with a commitment to truth: a belief that they have something to say, something good for others to hear, and a willingness to be a living testament to that truth. That doesn’t mean getting to the truth or expressing it is always easy, or that hearing it is always comfortable or welcomed: just ask the martyrs! But truth is, in the end, what frees, unites, and impassions. Preaching the truth, I suggested, is the bishop’s principal spiritual work of mercy, driven by Christ’s thirst for souls. Whatever their inadequacies, bishops must preach the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel. They must be heralds of Christ’s summons to good-better-best, calling all to conversion, starting with us and each other. G. K. Chesterton once claimed that there are reports of people being converted by almost anything that happens in church: the sound of a bell, the smell of incense, the rustle of vestments, or the devotion of the congregation—almost everything, he said, except the sermon. He claimed never to have found a single instance of someone being converted by a homily! Not that Chesterton was against homilies: he said, “I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion.”61 Chesterton’s remark about what converts people is a useful reminder of the part imagination and memory play in our spiritual life. People are often most deeply affected by things other than

120 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

words and propositions, even if, as people of the Word, we should never underestimate the power of our words to draw people to Christ. This is why, in chapter 4, I suggested that bishops need to find space for silence, prayer, adoration, listening, and for cultivating their imaginations and memories. They need soul food that lifts them out of themselves and transports them to new, better places, that enriches them and makes them more hopeful. Spiritual reading certainly; but broad and sustained reading beyond their finance council papers enables bishops to enlarge their minds with the histories, voices, and insights of others. The arts, natural beauty, and friendships with the virtuous do likewise. So, Paul instructed two bishops he was mentoring: You must preach the word persistently, in season and out of season; convince, rebuke, and encourage, all with the utmost patience in teaching. Those bishops who work hard at preaching and teaching are worthy of double honor. And he must be hospitable, benevolent, prudent, devout, and self-controlled; not arrogant, angry, drunk, violent, or greedy. But if he is to preach with sound doctrine and respond to its detractors, a bishop must have a firm grasp of the Word and the teaching we have received.62

That Paul had to say this suggests that already in his day there were some bishops or presbyters showing signs of egotism, quicktemper, materialism, or addiction—and not much inclined to preaching and teaching! Yet in Evangelii gaudium Pope Francis speaks about “the delightful and comforting joy of evangelizing.”63 Preaching and teaching are not just our “core business”: they should be fun! Knowing that the-God-who-loved-us-first often gives us the words, and alone gives the growth, we are able “to maintain a spirit of joy in the midst of a task so challenging it engages our entire life. God asks everything of us, yet at the same time he offers everything to us.”64 This emphasis on the hospitality, benevolence, and sheer joy proper to our vocations is why I turned our attention in chapter 5 to the inevitable isolation of the bishop and the human need for

Concluding Reflections | 121

friendship or community. In examining Jesus’ social and culinary life and Aquinas’s teaching on the importance of not being too earnest, I sought to show that we bishops must cultivate good friendships with others and fraternity with each other. So, I return to my original question: if our fraternity can be fraught and our communion imperfect, what are we to do about it? My provisional answer was: return to the sources of our faith, vocation, episcopal college. There we found considerable wisdom about bishop-togetherness. In the subsequent chapters I suggested applying this to our spirituality, friendships, and preaching, though far from simple, are indeed doable. And so, I offer a last lesson in the form of. . . . A READING FROM THE FOURTH LET TER O F S T. J O H N “Terrified is the word. Pete’s sinking fast and I’m watching from the boat, screaming out to Jesus in the howling wind, ‘Do something Master. Simon’s drowning. Save him.’ Stupid Simon. Always the impulsive one. Thinking he could walk on water. Look at him now.65 “Simon and his brother Andrew grew up with my brother Jimmy and me in Capernaum.66 Their father, Jonah, and our dad, Zebedee, were partners in a fishing business on Lake Galilee, and we all worked for them.67 One day Jesus passed by and called the four of us to follow him.68 Kind of crazy. We didn’t know the guy yet. But there was something about him. We dropped everything. And followed. “It turned out Jesus picked his guys carefully.69 There were precisely twelve of us on his council, as well as some special women, and a wider group who came and went.70 For three years we did everything together. Crisscrossed the Holy Land with Jesus till our feet ached. Witnessed his signs and wonders. Heard his great stories and other teaching. Learnt how to pray.71 We even got private tutorials, away from the crowd.72 We experienced all the highs and lows of being with Jesus—being awestruck or scared, enlightened or confused, depressed or elated—you name it, we felt it, and we felt it together.73 And we stuck with him—well, most of the time.74

122 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

“Though there was a bit of an age difference, Pete was my best friend, and we got closer, the closer we got to Jesus. We did lots of things together. We were the only ones there when Jesus healed Simon’s mother-in-law, when he raised the dead girl, and when he turned to pure light. We were the two he sent to prepare his last Passover. He told us to join him in the garden afterward, and we were the only two to follow him to his trial. We were the ones who raced to the empty tomb the day he rose from the dead, and the two he talked to about the future at Lake Galilee. After Jesus returned to the Father, Pete and I were inseparable. In the days after Pentecost, we two went preaching, healing, and testifying before the Council, the way Jesus did. We went down to Samaria to confirm the first non-Jews with the Holy Spirit. We did lots of other things, just Simon and me.75 “Jesus gave us all nicknames. He was big on them. Simon was Sinker one day, Satan the next, Deserter another day, but his usual nickname was Rocky. The others teased that it was because he was so hard-headed. Or hard-hearted. But Jesus saw a dependability in him that would be important: he could build a church on him. Simon was the one who spoke up, often saying what was on everyone’s mind, but often getting what Jesus was about before the rest of us.76 He was a natural leader—at least after being coached by Jesus. My brother Jim and I got nicknamed Boanerges or Sons of Thunder: maybe we were too noisy or maybe Jesus thought our mom was as scary as a thunderstorm. Jim was Great Thunder, and I was Little Thunder. But best of all Jesus called me Beloved disciple: I was young then, and it made me feel very special.77 “Too special perhaps. When my mom heard, she went straight to Jesus to ask for us to be promoted. But what we needed, Jesus knew, was a lesson in humility. And though he didn’t promise us thrones just yet, he said there would be big rewards: families, homes—and trials, too. That was typical of his sense of humor. But sure enough, our spiritual family grew enormously, even after he was gone, but one after another the Twelve were martyred, starting with my brother Jim, until only I was left.78 “Mom’s intervention didn’t go down so well with the other guys. But Pete forgave me: Jesus told him he had to forgive me lots. This

Concluding Reflections | 123

was an important lesson for us all. As he’d told us before, we had to stop being so judgmental toward each other, forgive more, be reconciled, fix our communion with each other before communing with God.79 “Jesus taught us lots of other things about togetherness—with him, the Father, other Christians, neighbors, beggars, strangers, even enemies. He kept telling us how interconnected we were, like sheep of one flock, branches of a vine, bricks of the same building. He taught us that blessedness is being meek, forgiving, generous, and peace-loving, eschewing anger and hate, violence and recrimination.80 “At his Last Supper, Jesus said we were no longer just his followers: we were his friends. I lay against his breast. He told us that we must love one another the way he loved us, abiding in his love, living by his commandments, even giving up our lives for each other. He prayed for our unity and blessed us with his peace. As an example of his own kind of loving, he washed our feet and gave us himself in the breaking of the bread.81 “He kept on giving. The next day, as he was dying, he gave me his mom, which made us brothers in a new way. And after his rising he again confirmed Pete’s love for him, blessed us with his peace, and gave us the great commission.82 “All that got me thinking that God is love. That Jesus is friendship. That the Holy Spirit is charity. To be godly, then, is to be loving. We’ve got to show we love each other, otherwise it’s all a farce. Which is why we Christians call each other brothers, friends, carissimi.83 “Jesus, as I said, wanted us to stick together. And mostly we did— at least until they kicked us out of the Holy Land.84 Then at last we understood that he was sending us out to all the world: one day our successors might get as far as the Americas or Australia. Now I’m the last one left of the Twelve. Left to dream my dreams and write my books. Left to write my letters, too, like this last one to you, to remind you about the importance of fraternity and communion. “The grace and peace of God our Father, the fraternity of Jesus Christ his Son, and the communion of their Holy Spirit, be with you all.”85

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Pauline, and Wendy Mayer. John Chrysostom. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Allen, Pauline, and Bronwen Neil. Crisis Management in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. 2013. Allen, Pauline, and David Sim, eds. Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature. London: T. and T. Clark, 2012. Aquinas, Thomas. Disputed Questions on Truth. Translated by Robert W. Mulligan, James V. McGlynn, and Robert William Schmidt. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954. ———. Disputed Questions on the Virtues. Edited by E. M. Watkins and Thomas Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. On Love and Charity: Readings from the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Edited and translated by Thomas Bolin, OSB, Joseph Bolin, and Peter A. Kwasniewski. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. ———. The Perfection of the Spiritual Life. Hawthorne, Calif.: Aeterna Press, 2015. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated, with introduction and notes by Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett, 2019. Arblaster, John, and Rob Faesen. Mystical Doctrines of Deification: Case Studies in the Christian Tradition. New York: Routledge, 2018. Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John. Vols. 1–10. Translated by John W. Rettig. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988. Baker, Gideon. Nihilism and Philosophy: Nothingness, Truth and World. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Explorations in Theology: Spouse of the Word. Vol 2. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991. ———. Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995. Beeley, Christopher A. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and Knowledge of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

125

126 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

Bellah, Robert N. Habits of the Heart. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Benedict XVI. Deus caritas est. Encyclical on Christian Love. 2005. ———. Address to a Meeting with Diocesan Clergy of Aosta. July 25, 2005. ———. Sacramentum caritatis: Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission. 2007. Casey, Michael. Meaninglessness: The Solutions of Nietzsche, Freud and Rorty. Melbourne: Freedom, 2001. Chesterton, G. K. Tremendous Trifles. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1909. Clark, Stephen, and Gillian Clarke. “Friendship in the Christian Tradition,” in The Dialectics of Friendship, edited by R. Porter and S. Tomaselli. London: Routledge, 1989. Congar, Yves.“The Church: The People of God.” In The Church and Mankind, edited by Edward Schillebeeckx, Concilium 1. Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist, 1965. Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Christian Church. Translated by Peter Hinchliff. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974. Daley, Brian. Gregory of Nazianzus. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Deneen, Patrick. Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2019. Dulles, Avery.“Nature, Mission and Structure of the Church.” In Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition, edited by M. Lamb and M. Levering. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Dumitrascu, Nicu. “The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus.” In The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, edited by Nicu Dumitrascu. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Esler, Philip. The Early Christian World. London and New York: Routledge, 2017. Fortman, Edmund. The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1999. Francis. Address to the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family. October 4, 2014.

Bibliography | 127

———. Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family. October 18, 2014. ———. Address to the U.S. Bishops. Washington, D.C., September 23, 2015. ———. Introductory Remarks for the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family. October 5, 2015. ———. Address to Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops. October 17, 2015. ———. Episcopalis communio: Apostolic Constitution on the Synod of Bishops. September 15, 2018. ———. Address at the Opening of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region. October 7, 2019. ———. Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region. October 26, 2019. ———. Address to the Faithful of the Diocese of Rome in Preparation for the Synod on Synodality. September 18, 2021. ———. Address for the Opening of the Path to the Synod on Synodality. October 9, 2021. Franklyn, Charles. Academical Dress from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Lewes, Sussex: W. E. Baxter, 1970. Holmes, Christopher. A Theology of the Christian Life: Imitating and Participating in God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2021. Ignatius of Antioch. A New Translation and Theological Commentary. Translated with commentary by Kenneth James Howell. Zanesville, Ohio: Coming Home Network, 2008. International Theological Commission. Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church. Vatican City: 2018. Irenaeus of Lyon. Against Heresies. Edited and translated by Dominic Unger and John. J Dillon. New York: Paulist Press, 1992 John Paul II. Christifideles laici. Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful. 1988. ———. Centesimus annus. Encyclical on the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum. May 1, 1991. ———. Apostolos suos. Motu Proprio on the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences. May 21, 1998.

128 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

———. Ecclesia in Oceania. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on Jesus Christ and the Peoples of Oceania. November 22, 2001. ———. Pastores Gregis. Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Bishop as the Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World. 2003. Justin Martyr, The Apologies of Justin Martyr. Edited by A. W. F. Blunt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Kariatlis, Philip. Church as Communion: The Gift and the Goal of Koinonia. Sydney, NSW: St. Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2010. Kelly, J. N. D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998. Laird, Martin. Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Lasch, Christopher. The Minimal Self. London: Norton, 1984. Luttrel, John. Norman Thomas Gilroy: An Obedient Life. Sydney: St. Pauls, 2017. MacIntyre, Alasdair. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? London: Duckworth, 1988. Mahoney, Edward.“Albert the Great on Christ and Hierarchy.” In Christ among the Medieval Dominicans, edited by K. Emery and J. Wawrykow. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Manoussakis, John.“Friendship in Late Antiquity: The Case of Gregory of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great.” In Ancient and Medieval Concepts of Friendship, edited by S. Stern-Gillet and G. Gurtler. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015. Marmodoro, Anna, and Neil McLynn. Exploring Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical, Theological, and Historical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. McGuckin, John. A. St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. McLynn, Neil.“Gregory of Nazianzen’s Basil: The Literary Construction of a Christian Friendship.” Studia Patristica 27 (2001): 178–93. McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizoulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1993.

Bibliography | 129

Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Meyer, Wendy. “The Bishop as Crisis Manager: An Exploration of Early Fifth-Century Episcopal Strategy.” In Studies of Religion and Politics in Early Christian Centuries, edited by D. Luckensmeyer and P. Allen. Sydney: St. Paul’s Centre for Early Christian Studies, 2010. Molloy, Noel. “Hierarchy and Holiness: Aquinas on the Holiness of the Episcopal State.” Thomist 39 (1975): 198–252. Newman, John Henry. The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. Edited by Charles Stephen Dessain. London: Nelson, 1961. Nichols, Aidan. Conciliar Octet: A Concise Commentary on the Eight Key Texts of the Second Vatican Council. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019. O’Malley, Vincent. Saintly Companions: A Cross-Reference of Sainted Relationships. New York: Alba House, 1994. Paul VI. Apostolica sollicitudo. Motu Proprio Establishing the Synod of Bishops for the Universal Church, 1965. ———. Homily at Randwick Racecourse for the 200th Anniversary of Cook’s Arrival in Australia. Sydney, December 1, 1970. Pius XII. Mystici Corporis Christi. Encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ the Church. June 29, 1943. Preston, Geoffrey. God’s Way to Be Man: Meditations on Following Christ through Scripture and Sacrament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1978. Purves, Andrew. Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Ratzinger, Joseph. Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press, 1966. ———. The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1978. ———. Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987. Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

130 |

UNIT Y IN CHRIST

Sagovsky, Nicholas. Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000. Silvas, Anna. Macrina the Younger, Philosopher of God. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Sirilla, Michael. The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017. Sykes, Donald A.“Understandings of the Church in the Cappadocians.” In Studies of the Church in History, edited by Horton Davies. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1983. Torrell, Jean-Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003. ———. Aquinas: The Person and Work. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2023. Van Dam, Raymond. Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2003. Whisker, James Biser. Nihilism: The Philosophy of Nothingness. New York: Nova Science, 2021. White, Caroline. Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

NOTES

FOREWORD 1. Pope Francis, Address Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops, October 17, 2015.

INTRODUCTION 1. In John’s Gospel Jesus was troubled in spirit and aware that he was about to be betrayed, denied, and deserted (13:10–11, 18, 21, 26–27, 36–38; 16:32; 17:12). He was aware also that he would soon be “glorified” in his Passion and return to his Father (13:3, 31–32; 14:19–20; 16:5, 16, 28; 17:1–2, 11). He was anxious for his disciples (13:33; 14:1, 27–31; 16:1–6, 20). He instructed them about authority and service (13:12–17; 18:33–37; 19:11), about confidence in the Father, in the Spirit and in himself (14:1–13, 16–18, 25–27; 15:1–8, 26–27; 16:1–15, 32), and about the meaning of persecution and suffering (15:1–2, 18– 27; 16:1–4, 20–24; 17:14). He taught them about truth (14:6, 17, 26; 15:26–27; 16:13; 17:8, 17–19; cf. 18:37–38) and love (13:34–35; 14:15, 21–24; 15:9–10, 12– 17; 16:27). He prayed over them for peace (14:27; 16:33), joy (15:11), and eternal life with him (17:3, 24).

PA R T I : S O U R C E S CHAPTER 1: Fraternity and Communio among the Apostles 1. Simon and Andrew: Mt 4:18; 10:2; Mk 1:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:40–41; 6:8. James and John: Mt 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; 20:24; Mk 1:19; 3:17; 6:3; Lk 5:10; Acts 12:2. Philip and Bartholomew/Nathanael are so often paired in the Gospel lists and so might have been relatives or friends: Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Jn 1:43–51. The other pairings—of Thomas the Twin and Matthew the tax collector, of James BarAlphaeus and Thaddaeus/Jude Bar-James, and of Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, are less likely to represent a blood relationship: Mt 10:3–4; Jn 11:6; 20:24; 21:2; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14–16. 2. “Brother” as used to describe a near relation such as a cousin: e.g., Gn 13:8; 14:14, 16; 29:12; Sg 4:9. (It is generally supposed that “the brothers of the Lord” were stepbrothers or cousins: Mt 1:25; 12:46–47; 13:55; Mk 3:31–32; 6:3; Lk 8:19–20; Jn 2:12; 7:3–5, 10; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5.) “Brother” as used to describe a companion or friend: 2 Sm 1:26; 1 Kgs 13:20; 20:33; Job 5:15; 6:15; Acts 6:3; 1 Thes 5:1. “Brother” as used to describe a neighbor, fellow tribe-

131

132 | Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 7–8 member, fellow countryman: e.g., Gn 19:7; Ex 2:11; Dt 23:7; Nm 8:26; 18:2; 32:6; Jude 21:6; 2 Sm 19:12–13; Jer 34:9; Neh 5:7; Ob 1:10; Mt 5:47; Acts 2:37; 3:22; 7:2; Heb 7:5.“Brother” as used to describe a fellow office-holder: 1 Kgs 9:13; Ezr 3:2; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1.“Brother” as used to describe a fellow believer: e.g., Am 1:9; Acts 13:15, 26, 38; 22:1–3; 23:1, 5–6; 28:17, 21. 3. “Brothers” as used to describe the apostles: Mt 28:10; Lk 22:32; Jn 20:7; Acts 21:17, 20; 1 Cor 9:5.“Brothers” as used to describe all the disciples: Mt 5:22– 24; 12:48–50; 18:35; Mk 3:33–35; Lk 8:21; Acts 9:17, 30; 11:12, 29; 14:2; 15:1, 7, 13, 22–23; 16:40; 21:17; 22:5, 13; 1 Pt 1:22. The word “brothers” is used eightyeight times for the Christian disciples in the Pauline literature alone. 4. Mt 10:37; 12:25, 46–50; 19:29; Mk 3:24–25; 10:29–30; Lk 8:20–21; 11:17; 12:52–53; 14:26; 18:29–30. 5. Mt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1–9, 14–18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 10:20, 29, 32; 11:25–27; 12:50; 13:43; 15:13; 16:17, 27; 18:10, 14, 35; 20:23; 23:9; 24:36; 25:34; 26:29; 26:39, 53; 28:19; Jn 4:23; 5:20–26; 6:40, 45–46, 57, 65; 8:39–54; 10:15–18; 12:26–28; 14–17; 20:17; cf. Gal 3:26; 1 Jn 5:1. 6. Mt 5:22–24; cf. Mt 5:43–46; 6:24; 18:35; 19:19; 22:37–39; Mk 12:30–33; Lk 6:27–35; 7:47; 10:27; Jn 3:16; 8:42; 10:7; 11:3–5, 36; 13:1, 23, 34–36; 14:15–31; 15:9–19; 16:27; 17:23–26; 20:2; 21:7, 15–17, 20; Acts 7:26; Rom 14:10. 7. The early Christians honored their brotherhood: 1 Pt 2:17; 5:9. They sought to demonstrate brotherly love: Rom 12:10; 1 Thes 4:9; Heb 13:1; 1 Pt 1:22; 2 Pt 1:7. They greeted each other with a fraternal kiss: Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 5:26; 1 Pt 5:14. They deplored division and failures of love. For examples of Paul deploring division and failures to love, see notes 95–96. Amongst other New Testament writers: 1 Pt 1:22; 1 Jn 2:10–11, 15–17; 3:10–24; 4:7–21; Jude 1:11–12, 17–23; Rv 2:4. 8. On κοινωνίᾳ in the New Testament: Lorelei Fuchs, “Biblical Foundations,” in Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), chapter 1; See Robrecht Michiels, “The ‘Model of Church’ in the First Christian Community in Jerusalem: Ideal and Reality,” Louvain Studies 10, no. 4 (1985): 303–23; George Panikulam, Koinõnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979); John Reumann, “Koinonia in Scripture: Survey of Biblical Texts,” in On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth Word Conference on Faith and Order, ed. T. Best and G. Gassmann (Geneva: WCC, 1994); Leopold Sabourin, “Koinonia in the New Testament,” Religious Studies Bulletin 1, no. 4 (1981): 109– 15; Nicholas Sagovsky, Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000). 9. Kοινωνίᾳ with God the Father: Phil 1:7; 1 Jn 1:3, 6; 2 Pt 1:4. Kοινωνίᾳ with the Son/Christ: 1 Cor 1:9; Phil 3:10; Phlm 1:6; 1 Jn 1:3, 7. Kοινωνίᾳ with Christ’s mystical body the church: see note 10. Kοινωνίᾳ with Christ’s Eucharistic body and blood: Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 10:16–17; Heb 10:10; 1 Jn 1:7. Kοινωνίᾳ with his passion, resurrection, and glory: Phil 3:10; 1 Pt 4:13; 5:1; cf. Rom 6:5. Kοινωνίᾳ with the Holy Spirit: Rom 11:17; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1. Kοινωνίᾳ with

Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 8–9 | 133 the apostles or the whole church by sharing in the Breaking of the Bread, contributing to the poor, or giving witness in evangelization: Acts 2:42; Rom 12:13; 15:26–27; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 6:14; 8:4; 9:13; Gal 2:9; 6:6; Phil 1:5–7; 4:15; 1 Tm 6:18; Phlm 1:6, 17; Heb 10:33; 13:16; 1 Jn 1:3, 7; Rv 1:9. 10. Kilian McDonnell, “Canon and Koinonia/Communio: The Formation of the Canon Was an Ecclesiological Process,” Gregorianum 79 (1998): 29. 11. Eν εσμεν (are one): Jn 10:30; 17:11; 17:22. Eν σώμά εσμεν (in one body): Rom 12:4–5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12; Eph 2:16; Eις εν χριστώ, one in Christ): Gal 3:28. Eν ενί πνεύματι (in one Spirit): 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 2:18; Phil 1:27. Άπαντες ομοθυμαδόν επί το αυτό (all together in the same place of one accord): Acts 2:1; cf. Acts 8:6; Eph 2:14f. η καρδία και η ψυχή μία (of one heart and soul): Acts 4:32. 12. The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (Ἰησοῦ) (in Christ Jesus) appears ninety-four times in the Pauline corpus, e.g. Rom 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1–2, 39; 9:1; 12:5; 15:7; 16:3– 10; 1 Cor 1:24, 30; 3:1; 4:15, 17; 15:18–31; 16:24; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 1:3–14; Phil 3:9; Col 1:12–20; 2:6–11; 2 Thes 1:12. It also gets a run in the Johannine corpus: Jn 6:56; 14:20; 15:2–7; 16:33; 17:21; 1 Jn 3:6, 24; 4:13–16; 5:20. ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ: Acts 19:21; Rom 8:9; 9:1; 14:17; 1 Cor 6:11; 14:2; Eph 6:18; Phil 2:1; 3:3; Col 1:8; 1 Thes 1:5; 1 Pt 4:16; Jude 1:20; Rv 1:10; 4:2; 21:10. Jesus uses the phrase ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ (in the Father): Jn 8:38; 10:38; 14:10–11; cf. 1 Jn 2:24. Paul speaks of being τῷ Θεῷ or τῷ Θεῷ Πατρὶ (in God/in God the Father): Acts 17:28; Col 3:3; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1; cf. Jn 17:21; Jude 1:1; 1 Jn 2:6, 27–28. 13. Rom 8:9–11; 9:17; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 11:10; 12:9; 13:3–5; Gal 2:20; 3:8; 4:19; Phil 2:5, 13; Col 1:27; 3:16; 2 Thes 1:12; 2:13; 1 Pt 3:15; 1 Jn 2:14, 24, 27; 3:24; 4:4, 13, 16; cf. Jn 5:38, 42; 6:53; 8:37; 14:17, 20; 15:4, 7, 11; 17:21–23. Likewise, there is the language of the persons of the Trinity being in each other: e.g., Jn 10:38; 13:31–32; 14:10–12, 20; 15:4–5; 17:21–23. 14. Citizens of the one kingdom: Mt 5:3, 10, 19; 6:33; 7:21; 11:11; 13:38, 43; 16:19; 18:1–4; 19:14; 21:31; 25:34; 26:29; Jn 3:3–5; 18:36; Rom 14:17; Eph 2:19. Worshippers in the Temple: Mt 16:18; 21:14–15; Lk 22:53; 24:53; Jn 2:19–21; 7:14, 28; 8:2; 10:23; 18:20; 1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 5:1; Eph 2:21–22. Sheep of one flock: Mt 18:12; 25:32–33; 26:31; Jn 10:1–18; 21:16–17; Heb 13:20; cf. 1 Pt 2:25; 5:1–11. Fish in a net: Mt 4:19; Lk 5:2–11; 13:47; Jn 21:6–8. Branches of one vine: Jn 15:1–11; cf. Mt 20:1–16; 21:28–32, 33–43; Lk 6:43–45. Workers in a vineyard: Mt 20:1–16; 21:28–32, 33–44; cf. 1 Cor 3:5–9. Builders and stones of a building: Mt 7:24–25; 16:18; 21:42, 44; Lk 6:46–49; 14:28–30; cf. 1 Cor 3:9–15; 14:3, 12, 26; 2 Cor 5:1; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; Eph 2:20; 4:12–29; Heb 6:1; 11:10. Diners at the same table/banquet: Mt 22:1–14; 25:1–13; 26:7, 29; Lk 5:29–32; 7:36–50; 17:7– 10; 22:1, 27, 30; 24:30; Jn 13:4, 12. Passengers in the one boat: Mt 8:23–27; 13:2; 14:22–33; Jn 6:16–24; 21:3–8. Members of the one body: Rom 12:4–7; 1 Cor 6:12–20; 12; Eph 1:22–23; 3:6; 4:1–16; 5:23, 29–32; Col 1:18–24; 2:19; 3:15. 15. Mt 8:10; 12:16–21; Lk 2:32; 4:25–27; 7:9; Acts 2:5–11; 10:28, 34–48; 11:18; 13:26, 46–47; 14:27; 15:17–19; Rom 5:13–21; 11:11–36; Gal 3:6–9, 26–29; 6:16; Eph 2:11–22; Rv 5:9; 7:4, 9; 14:1–7. 16. Acts 2:42.

134 | Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 9–10 17. Zaqen (= an elder, elders), Ex 3:16–18; 12:21; 17:5–6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9,14; Dt 5:20; 27:1; 29:9; 31:9, 28; Nm 11:16, 24–25, 30; 16:25; Josh 7:6; 8:10, 33; 9:11; 24:1. 18. Homer, Odyssey, 8:163; Plato, Laws, 6.784a and 8.849a; Aristophanes, Birds, 1022–23. 19. Πρεσβύτερος: Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2–6, 22–23; 16:4; 20:7; 21:8; 1 Tm 4:14; 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pt 5:1, 5; 2 Jn 1:1; 3 Jn 1:1. The book of Revelation has twenty-four elders: Rv 4:4, 10; 5:5–14; 7:11–13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. ἐπίσκοπος: Acts 1:20; 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tm 3:1–2; Ti 1:7–9; 1 Pt 2:25; 5:2. Less common were the words ποιμένα (shepherd, pastor: Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 2:25) and οἰκονόμος (steward: 1 Cor 4:1–2; Ti 1:7; 1 Pt 4:10). Apostleship appears at Acts 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 9:2. On the meaning of these words: J. E. Wehrmeyer, “Where Have All the Bishops Gone?,” Acta Theologica Supplementum 112 (2009): 106–29. 20. “The apostles and elders”: Acts 15:2–6, 22–23; 16:4. “The apostles and faithful” or “the apostles and the brothers”: Acts 11:1; 1 Cor 9:5. While ἀρχιερεύς (high priest), ἱερεύς (priest), and ἱεράτευμα (priesthood) are borrowed from the Jews and especially the cult in the Temple, the idea is applied to Christ in Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:5–6,10; 6:20; 7:1, 3, 11, 14–17, 20–23, 26–28; 8:1–4; 9:7, 11, 25; 13:11; and to the Christian people in 1 Pt 2:5, 9. 21. 1 Tm 4:14; cf. Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5. 22. 1 Tm 3:1–7; Ti 1:7–9: “A bishop must be of good repute and above reproach—gentle, sober, hospitable, benevolent, prudent, and devout—and able to control his own family; he must not be arrogant or conceited, quicktempered or quarrelsome, greedy or drunk, nor be a recent convert or married more than once; he must have a firm grasp of the Word of God, be sound in his teaching, and be able both to preach and teach well and to refute error.” 23. Patrick Granfield, “The Uncertain Future of Collegiality,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 40 (1985): 97. The incident referred to is at Mt 26:56; Mk 14:50. 24. The call of the apostles and listing of the Twelve: Mt 4:18–22; 9:9; 10:1– 15; 28:16–20; Mk 3:13–16; 6:7–13; 16:14–20; Lk 6:7–13; 9:1–6; 22:28–30; Jn 6:70; Acts 1:2, 8; cf. Lk 10:1–12, 19. They are called ἀπόστολος seventy-nine times in the New Testament and as often the Twelve. Paul claimed that he was also one of the apostles: Gal 1:1, 11; 2:8; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:1; 15:8–10; 2 Cor 3:2ff; 12:12; 1 Tm 2:7; 2 Tm 1:11; cf. Acts 26:12–20. The term was occasionally extended further: e.g., to Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and possibly Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thes 2:7; Rom 16:7); e.g., Mt 4:25; 5:1; 8:1, 10, 21; 12:15; 14:13; 19:2; 20:34; 21:9; Mk 5:20; Jn 9:27–28. In Matthew’s Gospel, in particular,“the disciples” is mostly used interchangeably with “the twelve” or “the apostles” (e.g., Mt 8:23; 9:10; 10:1; 11:1; 13:10; 14:15–26; 15:32–36; 19:27–28; 28:16–20) but sometimes implies a larger group (e.g., Mt 5:1; 12:50). 25. The holy women: Mt 27:55; Mk 15:40–41; Lk 8:1–2; 23:49, 55; 24:5, 10, 22. The others: Mt 14:21; 15:32, 38; Lk 10:1, 17; Acts 1:21–22 (includes direct quotation); 1 Cor 15:6. The crowds: Mt 4:23–25; 5:1; 7:28; 8:1, 18; 9:8, 36; 11:7;

Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 10–12 | 135 12:15, 23, 46; 13:2, 34; 14:13–15, 19, 22–23; 15:10, 30–39; 17:14; 19:2; 20:29–31; 21:8–11; 22:33; 23:1. 26. E.g., Mk 6:30; Lk 8:1; Acts 4:13. 27. Mt 14:13–21; 15:32–37; Mk 6:30–44; 8:1–8; Lk 9:10–17; Jn 6:1–13. 28. Students of the one teacher: Mt 23:8–10; Jn 13:13. All the mysteries explained: Mk 4:34. Taught separately from the crowd: Mt 11:1; 13:10–17, 36; 8:10; 16:5–12; 17:19; 20:17; 24:3; Mk 4:10–13, 34; 6:31–32; 9:28, 31; 10:32; Lk 8:10; 9:10, 18; 10:23; 12:41; 18:31; Acts 1:2, 21–22. 29. E.g., Mt 5:1–7:28; Lk 6:20–49; Jn 14–17. 30. Mt 6:2; 11:29–30; 18:1–4; 23:10–12; Mk 9:33–37; Lk 9:46–50; 14:7–11; 22:24–30; Jn 3:22–36; 5:41; 8:50; 13:1–17. 31. Mt 6:33; 10:16–25, 40–42; 25:21; Mk 10:28–30; Lk 12:37; Jn 17:2. 32. Mt 5:11–12; 10:16–23, 38–39; 16:24–28; 19:28; 24:9; Mk 8:34–35; 13:13; Lk 9:23–27; 21:17; Jn 15:18–20; 17:14. 33. E.g., Mt 4:18–22; 8:28–29; 9:9; 11:25–27; 12:1–8, 49–50; 14:28–29, 33, 51; 16:13–20; 17:4–6; 26:33; 28:17; Mk 1:16–20, 35–39; 2:18–20; 6:7, 13; 8:29; 9:5; 10:28; 14:29, 31, 41–46; Lk 5:4–5; 9:1–2, 6, 10, 33; 22:33; Jn 1:35–51; 2:11; 6:68– 69; 13:9; 16:29–31; 20:20, 25, 28; 21:7, 15–17. 34. Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:28–33; 16:8, 23; 17:20; 26:30–35; 28:17; Mk 4:40; 11:23– 24; 16:14; Lk 8:25; 17:5–6; 18:8; 22:32. 35. Mistaking his meaning: Mt 18:21; 19:10, 13–15; 20:22; 24:3–6; 26:8–13; Mk 4:13; 6:52; 7:18; 8:17, 21; 9:32, 45; 10:13–16; Lk 9:22, 45; 18:15–17, 34; Jn 1:48– 50; 6:19–20; 8:27; 13:7. Misunderstanding his messiahship: Mt 16:16–28; Mk 8:29–38; Lk 9:20–27; 24:19–21; cf. Jn 6:15; 12:34. Misunderstanding his predictions of passion, death, and rising: E.g., Mt 12:39–40; 16:4, 22–23; Mk 8:32–33; 9:32; Lk 9:45; 18:34; Jn 2:21–22; 4:27, 31–33; 12:16; 20:9; cf. Lk 24:25–27, 45. 36. Awestruck: Mt 8:27; 21:20; Mk 4:41; 10:32; Lk 5:9, 26; 8:25; 9:43; 24:37; Jn 7:21. Frightened: Mt 8:25–26; 14:26–27; 17:6–7, 23; 26:22; Mk 4:38–40; 6:50; 9:6, 32–34; 10:32; Lk 5:10; 7:16; 8:25; 9:45; 24:37; Jn 6:19–20; 14:27; 20:19. Enlightened: Mt 13:51; 17:13. Confused: Mk 9:6; Lk 9:45; 18:34; 24:41. Depressed, “asleep for grief” or “weighed down with sleep”: Lk 9:32; 22:45. Elated: Mt 5:1– 12; 13:16–17, 44; 25:21, 23; 28:8; Lk 6:20–23; 9:10; 10:17; 19:37; 24:41, 52; Jn 15:11; 16:20–24; 17:13. 37. The Twelve all joined Jesus for his last supper: Mt 26:17–30; Mk 14:12– 26; Lk 22:7–23; Jn 13:2. They fought yet again about who was greatest: Lk 22:24–27. He washed their feet: Jn 13:1–11. Instructed them about authority and service: Mt 26:13, 21, 34; Jn 14:6, 17; 15:1, 13, 26; 16:7, 13; 17:3, 8, 17, 19; cf. Mt 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18:3, 13, 18– 19; 19:3, 28; 21:21, 31; 22:16; 23:36; 24:2, 34, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13; Mk 12:14; Lk 4:25; 20:21; Jn 1:14, 17; 3:21, 33; 4:23–24; 5:32; 6:32, 55; 7:18, 28; 8:26, 31–32, 40– 46. Instructed them about truth: Mt 26:13, 21, 34; Jn 14:6, 17; 15:1, 13, 26; 16:7, 13; 17:3, 8, 17, 19; cf. Mt 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18:3, 13, 18–19; 19:3, 28; 21:21, 31; 22:16; 23:36; 24:2, 34, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13; Mk 12:14; Lk 4:25; 20:21; Jn 1:14, 17; 3:21, 33; 4:23–24; 5:32; 6:32, 55; 7:18,

136 | Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 12–13 28; 8:26, 31–32, 40–46. Instructed them about love: Jn 13:14–15, 34–35; 14:15, 21–24; 15:9–17; 16:27. Prayed for their unity: Jn 10:16; 13:14, 35; 15:1–7; 16:33; 17:11–24; cf. Mt 12:25; 18:15–20; 23:8; Mk 3:25. 38. Mt 26:26–27; Mk 14:22–23; Lk 22:19–20; cf. Jn 6. 39. The apostles promise not to betray him: Mt 26:31–35; Mk 14:31. The apostles sleep when he asks them to stand by him: Mt 24:42–43; 25:13; 26:38– 46; Mk 13:35–37; 14:34–42; Lk 22:45–46; 1 Cor 11:23–26; cf. Mt 25:5; Mk 13:37; Lk 21:36. The apostles flee: Mt 26:56; Mk 14:50; cf. Mt 26:31; Mk 14:27. Judas’s betrayal: Mt 10:4; 26:14–16, 21–25, 31–35, 47–49; 27:3–5; Mk 3:19; 14:10–11; Lk 6:16; 22:3–6, 47–48; Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 21–29; 18:1–5; Acts 1:16, 25. Peter’s denials: Mt 26:31–35, 69–75; Mk 14:27–31, 66–72; Lk 22:31–34, 54–62; Jn 13:36– 38; 18:15–18, 25–27. 40. Mk 16:14; Lk 24:9–10; Jn 20:19, 26. Some returned for a time to Galilee (Mt 28:16; Jn 21:2); the others stayed, and they all regrouped before Pentecost: Acts 1:6, 13; 2:1. 41. Mt 28:16–17; Mk 16:14; Lk 24:36–38; Jn 20:19–20, 26–27; 21:1. 42. Mt 28:17; Mk 16:19; Lk 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–11. 43. Mt 28:19–20; Mk 16:15–18; Acts 1:8; 2:32–34; 3:20–21; 4:20. 44. Mt 18:20. 45. Lk 24:30–36; Jn 20:19, 26; 21:13. 46. Mt 3:11; 10:20; Lk 11:13; 12:12; Jn 3:5–8, 34; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 1:5, 8. 47. Mk 6:7, 13. 48. Acts 1:2, 4, 6, 12–13, 26; 2:1, 37, 43; 4:5; 5:18. 49. Acts 8:1. 50. προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν: Acts 1:14; 2:42–47; 4:31–34. 51. Prayer and praise together: Acts 1:14; 2:42, 46; 4:31; 6:4, 6; 12:5, 12; 13:3; 14:23; 20:36; 21:5. Celebrated the Breaking of the Bread together: Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35; 1 Cor 10:16–17; 11:23–28. Celebrated baptisms, confirmations, and ordinations, often but not always together: Acts 2:38, 41; 6:6; 8:13–18, 36– 39; 9:18; 10:44–48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:1–7; 22:16. Sometimes the sick were anointed jointly: Jas 5:14; cf. Acts 9:12; 28:8. Coming of the Spirit: Jn 20:22; Acts 1:2; 2:1–13, 17–18, 33; 4:8, 31; 5:32; 10:44–45; 11:15; 13:52; 15:8. 52. Preaching, teaching or “serving the word” together: Acts 2:42; 4:2–4, 18–20, 29–31; 5:42; 6:2–7; 8:4, 25; 10:44; 11:1; 12:24; 13:1, 5–7, 12, 44–49; 14:3; 15:1ff; 16:32; 17:13, 19; 18:5, 11; 19:10, 20; 20:20; 21:21, 28; 28:31. Working signs and wonders together: Acts 2:43; 5:12, 16; 8:7, 13 (some were by one of the apostles alone: Acts 3:1–10; 9:32–35; 12:1–19; 14:8–11; 19:11–12; 20:7–12; 28:8–10). 53. Giving witness together: Lk 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 23:11; 1 Pt 5:1. Imprisoned etc. together: Acts 4 and 5. 54. Peter and the other apostles: Acts 2:14, 37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5. Peter stood up and spoke: Acts 1:15; 2:14; cf. 10:34; 11:4; 15:7. 55. Acts 1:12–26; 4:35–37; 6:1–5; 9:26–30; 12:25; 15; 21:18f.

Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 13–15 | 137 56. E.g., Mt 14:27–29; 16:18; Jn 21:15–19; Acts 1:15–22; 2:14–36, 38–40; 3:4– 7, 12–36; 4:8–12; 5:3–10; 8:20–23; 10:27–44; 11:4–17; 15:7–11. 57. Additional “apostles”: Matthias in Acts 1:25–26; Barnabas in Acts 14:14; 1 Cor 9:5–6; Gal 2:9; Paul in Acts 14:14; Rom 1:1, 5; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 4:9; 9:1–5; 15:7–9; 2 Cor 1:1; 11; 12:11–12; Gal 1:1, 11–24; 2:6–9; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thes 2:7; 1 Tm 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tm 1:1, 11; Ti 1:1. Appointed elders: Acts 11:30; 13:1–4; 14:23; 15:2; 16:4; 20:17, 18, 28. “Apostles and elders”: Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; cf. Acts 20:18. 58. Paul falling out with his associates: Acts 15:36–40; 17:15. Paul bristling at having to be confirmed by Peter: Acts 15:2, 12; 1 Cor 9:1–5; 15:5, 8–10; Gal 1:1, 11–24; 2:1, 9, 11–14; cf. Acts 10:1–11:18; 15:2 (Peter as apostle to the Gentiles) versus Gal 2:7–8 (Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles). 59. Division over surrendering property: Acts 5:1–11. Complaints about collections and the apostles’ work: Acts 6:1–2; cf. 11:28–30. Suspicion of Paul: Acts 9:21. Opposition to Peter eating with uncircumcised: Acts 11:2–3. Jewish opposition: Acts 4:1–21; 5:17–41; 6:8–7:60; 8:1–3; 9:23–2; 12:1–5; 13:8, 45–51; 14:1–7; 17:5–9, 13, 32; 18:6, 12–13, 19, 28; 19:8–9; 21:8–14, 27–36; 22:22–24; 22:30–23:35; 24:5, 9, 27; 25:7–12, 18–19. Magicians contended for spiritual power: Acts 8:9–24; 13:6–12; 16:16–24; 19:13–20; Gal 5:19–21; Rv 9:21; 21:8; 22:15. Pagans pressed their claims: Acts 14:5–6, 11–18; 17:16, 32; 19:23–41. 60. 1 Cor 15:11. 61. E.g., societas, participatio, conversatus, consortio. . . . The closest we get to communio are: communicatio, communicantes, and communicator. 62. Acts 2:42. 63. Gal 2:9. 64. Divided into 220,000 parishes. 65. Mt 5:9, 21–26; Mk 4:39; 5:34; 9:50; 10:13; 26:52; Lk 8:48; 10:5–6; 19:42; 24:36; Jn 14:27; 16:33; 18:11; 20:19, 21, 26; cf. Lk 1:79; 2:14, 29; 19:38; Rom 1:7; 5:1; 8:6; 12:18; 14:17; 15:13, 33; 1 Cor 1:3; 7:15; 14:33; 2 Cor 1:2; 13:11; Gal 1:3; 5:22; 6:16; Eph 1:2; 2:14–17; 4:3; 6:15; Phil 1:2; 4:7, 9; Col 1:20; 3:15; 1 Thes 1:1; 5:13; 2 Thes 1:2; 3:16; 1 Tm 1:2; 2:2; 2 Tm 1:2; 2:22; Ti 1:4; Phlm 1:3; Heb 13:20; Jas 3:17–18; 1 Pt 1:2; 3:11; 2 Pt 1:2; 3:14; 2 Jn 1:3; 3 Jn 1:15; Jude 1:2; Rv 1:4. 66. Mt 10:34; Lk 12:49–53; Jn 7:43; 9:16; 10:19. 67. Mt 12:46–50; Mk 3:19–21, 31–35; Lk 8:19–21; Jn 7:1–5; cf. Mt 5:23–24, 47; 10:21; 15:4–6; 19:19, 29; Mk 7:10–13; 10:19, 29–30; 13:12; Lk 12:53; 14:12, 26; 15; 18:20, 29; Jn 2. 68. Mt 18:1–4; 20:20–28; 23:1–11; Mk 9:33–34; 10:35–45; Lk 9:46–48; 22:24–26. 69. Mt 14:28–29; 15:15; 16:13–23; 17:4; 18:21–22; 19:27–30; 26:33–35; 26:58, 69–75; Mk 8:27–33; 9:5; 10:28; 11:21; 14:26–31, 54, 66–72; Lk 5:8; 8:45; 9:18–20, 33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31–34, 54–62; 24:12; Jn 6:68; 13:6–9, 36–37; 18:10–11, 15– 27; 21:3, 7, 11, 15–21. 70. Mt 26:58, 69; Mk 14:54, 66; Lk 22:54–55; Jn 18:15–16; 19:26. 71. Jn 20:19–31.

138 | Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 16–18 72. Jn 21:1–2 lists seven as present for Jesus’ appearance at the Sea of Tiberias; Mt 28:7, 16 has all eleven. In Mk 16:7 they are told that Jesus will go ahead of them to Galilee, but it seems the apostles remained in Jerusalem for his ascension: Mk 16:14, 19. In Lk 24:50 he led them out to Bethany (near Jerusalem and nowhere near Galilee) for his ascension. 73. Acts 20:29–31; Rom 12:18; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Eph 4:1–3, 13, 26, 31; Col 2:2; 3:8, 15; 1 Thes 5:13; 1 Tm 1:3–7; 2:2, 8; Heb 4:2; 12:14; 1 Pt 3:8; Jas 1:19; Rv 2:2. Regarding governance in the apostolic church, see Todd Berzon, “‘O, Foolish Galatians’: Imagining Pauline Community in Late Antiquity,” Church History 85, no. 3 (2016): 435–67; Andrew Byers, “Johannine Bishops? The Fourth Evangelist, John the Elder, and the Episcopal Ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch,” Novum Testamentum 60 (2018) 121–39; Wayne Meeks, “Governance,” The First Urban Christians, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), chapter 4; L. L. Welborn, “How ‘Democratic’ Was the Pauline Ekklesia?,” New Testament Studies 65 (2019): 289–309. 74. Acts 15; also referred to in Acts 21:25; Gal 2:1–10. 75. E.g., Mt 5:17–18; 7:12; 12:1–14; 19:1–12; 23; Lk 14:3; 16:14–18; Jn 1:17; 5:1–17; 7:19–24; 8:2–11. 76. Examples of the Judaizing tendency: Mt 15:24; Mk 7:27; Jn 4:21–22; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:3; 15:1, 5, 20, 29; 16:1–3; Rom 1:16; 3:1–2; 9:4–5; 1 Cor 1:12; 9:20; Gal 2:11–13; 3:1; Phil 3:2. 77. Against the Judaizing tendency: Mt 15:25–28; 28:19; Mk 16:15; Jn 4:23–24; Acts 1:8; 10–11; 13:13–14, 24; 15:3, 7–12, 19–29; Rom 2:17–29; 3:9– 28; 5:1–11; 1 Cor 7:17–21; 9:20–23; Gal 2:14–21; 3–5; 6:12; Phil 3:2–10; Ti 1:10– 16; 3:9. 78. Acts 10:15, 28, 34; 11:17. 79. James, brother of the Lord, rather than James, the son of Zebedee, who was already martyred by this point. Gal 2:11–13. 80. Acts 16:3; Rom 14; 1 Cor 8; 10:14–22; Col 2:16–19; 1 Tm 4:3–4. 81. Acts 15:2. 82. Gal 2:1, 9. 83. Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom 14; 1 Thes 4:3. 84. Gal 2:10. 85. Acts 15:22. 86. Speeches: Acts 13:38–39; 15:4–5, 35; 21:17; 22:17–21; Gal 2:1–10; 2:11– 14. Writings re: faith and legalism: Rom 2–7; Gal 2:7–5:12; 6:11–16; Col 2:11– 23; 3:11. Faith and lawlessness: 1 Cor 6:12–20; 10:23–24; Gal 5:13–26; 2 Thes 2:1–12; cf. 2 Pt 2:1–3; Jude 1:4. The Jews, Jewish-Christians, and Gentile-Christians: Rom 2:17–4:25; 9–11; 15:7–13; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:2–11. Food laws: Rom 14; 1 Cor 8; 10:23–33; Col 2:16. 87. Wisdom and authority in the church: 1 Cor 3:18–19, 4:9–13; 2 Cor 5:20; 10 and 11; 12:11–13; Gal 1:11–2:21; Eph 3:1–13; Col 1:24–29. Evil and suffering: Rom 8:16–39; 2 Cor 4:8–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–33; 12:7–10; Col 1:24–29. The resurrection of Christ and of the faithful: Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 5:1–10; Phil 3:10–

Notes to Ch. 1, pp. 18–20; Ch. 2, pp. 23–24 | 139 11. Orderly worship and abuses at the Eucharist: 1 Cor 10:16–22; 11:2–34; 14:26–39. The purpose and use of charismatic gifts: Rom 12:1–13; 1 Cor 2, 12, 14. The necessity of love: Rom 5:5; 12:9–10; 13:8–10; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:1; 13:1–14:1; 16:14; 2 Cor 6:6; 8:8, 26; 9:7; Gal 5:13–14, 22; Eph 1:4, 15; 4:2, 15–16; 5:2; 6:23; Phil 2:2; Col 1:4; 2:2; 3:14; 1 Thes 3:6, 12; 4:9–12; 5:8; 1 Tm 1:5; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tm 1:7; 2:22; Ti 2:2; Phlm 1:5–9. Marriage, divorce, and celibacy: 1 Cor 7; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1; Eph 4:21–33; 1 Tm 4:1–5. Sexual morality: Rom 1:18–2:11; 1 Cor 5:1–5; 6:12–20; 14:26–40; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:13–26; Eph 4:17–24; 5:3–5; Col 3:5; 1 Thes 4:1–8. Associating with the immoral: 1 Cor 5:11–13; 6:9–1; Eph 5:5–14; 1 Tm 1:8–11; 2 Tm 3:1–9. Relationships to civil authority and civil courts: Rom 13:1–7; 1 Cor 6:1–8; cf. 1 Pt 2:13; 5:5; 2 Pt 2:10. The place and etiquette of women: 1 Cor 11:2–16; 14:33–36; Gal 3:28; 1 Tm 2:8–15; Eph 5:21–33; Col 3:18; cf. 1 Pt 3:1–6. Arrogance and ambition: Rom 11:20; 1 Cor 4:14–21; 5:2, 6; 12:31; 13:4; Phil 1:17; 2:3; 1 Tm 6:4–10; cf. Jas 3:14–16; 4:16. Church collections, money, and work: Acts 24:17; Rom 15:25–27; 1 Cor 9:6–18; 11:17–34; 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1– 15; 9:6–15; Gal 2:10; Phil 4:10–20; 1 Thes 4:9–12; 5:12–22; 2 Thes 3:6–15; cf. Jas 2:1–13. 88. Rom 1:29; 12:9; 13:13; 14:1, 15; 1 Cor 11:18–34; 2 Cor 6:6; 8:24; 12:20; Gal 1:6–9; 5:20; 2 Thes 2:16; 1 Tm 6:3–5; 2 Tm 2:14, 22–26; 3:3–7; 4:1–5; Ti 1:9– 2:15; 3:2, 9–10. 89. 1 Cor 1:10–13; 3:3–9. 90. Eph 4:1–16; cf. Rom 9:1. 91. Cf. Acts 20:28–31 to the Ephesians. 92. Col 2:4–23. Likewise, regarding vain arguments: 1 Cor 1:18–25; 2:1–8. 93. 1 Tm 1:3–7; 4:1–5; 6:3–5; 2 Tm 2:14–17, 26; 3:3–4; 4:3–4. 94. Rom 16:17–18. 95. Eph 2:11–22. 96. 1 Pt 1:22; 2 Pt 2:1–22; 1 Jn 2:10–26; 3:10–24; 4:7–21; Jude 1:11–12, 17– 23; Rv 2:4.

CHAPTER 2: Episcopal Fraternity and Communio in the Tradition 1. E.g., St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians 2; 6.1; 7.1; 13.1; Epistle to the Trallians 2.2 and 3; Epistle to the Philadelphians praef.; 7.1; Epistle to Polycarp 6.1; Epistle to the Ephesians 2.2; 4.1; 20.2. Cf. USCCB Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries (Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 2004), 159. 2. E.g., St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8; Ephesians 6; Magnesians 2.6.1; Philadelphians 3. 3. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnæans 6.2–7.1; Ephesians 20.2; Trallians 6– 8; Philadelphians 10. 4. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Magnesians 8.1; Philadelphians 3; Polycarp 2–5. 5. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 1.3; Magnesians 2; 6.1. 6. USCCB, Church as Koinonia of Salvation, 159–61.

140 | Notes to Ch. 2, pp. 24–27 7. Philip Kariatlis, Church as Communion: The Gift and the Goal of Koinonia (Sydney, NSW: St. Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2010) finds these already clear as early as the Didache, I Clement and the Ignatian corpus. See 159. 8. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology to Antonius Pius and Second Apology to the Roman Senate. 9. So, too, St. Cyprian, who describes the church as “a people brought into one by the unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; St. Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer 23; cf. LG 4. 10. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology to Antonius Pius 66.1–2. 11. Kariatlis, Church as Communion, 162, citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.26.2. 12. Kariatlis, Church as Communion, chapter 4, citing Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 1.10; 3.4. 13. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.18 and 5. 14. USCCB, Church as Koinonia of Salvation, 162–68 and sources therein. 15. Origen, Homily on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 9.1. 16. St. Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Teacher 1.6.42. 17. St. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood. 18. Andrew Purves, Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition (Louisville: Westminister Press, 2001), 34. 19. Regarding Chrysostom’s preaching and epistolary apostolates, see Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill 2013), chapter. 1; Philip Esler, ed., The Early Christian World, 2nd ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2017); J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998); Wendy Mayer, “The Bishop as Crisis Manager: An Exploration of Early Fifth-Century Episcopal Strategy,” in Studies of Religion and Politics in Early Christian Centuries, ed. D. Luckensmeyer and P. Allen (Sydney: St. Paul’s Center for Early Christian Studies, 2010), 159–71; Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (London and New York: Routledge, 1999); David Sim and Pauline Allen, eds., Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature (London: T. and T. Clark, 2012). 20. Kenneth Stevenson, “Patristics and Bishops: What Four Fathers Might Say to Episcopacy Today,” Theology 114, no. 2 (2011): 92, citing St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 11.1, VI.4, V.1, VI.10; Purves, Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition, 33–54. 21. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 1. 22. Live in his time were debates over Apollinarism, Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Manicheism, Pelagianism, and Priscillianism. 23. Wendy Mayer,“Media Manipulation as a Tool in Religious Conflict: Controlling the Narrative surrounding the Deposition of John Chrysostom,” in Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam, ed. W. Mayer and B. Neil (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013) 151–68. 24. Allen and Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, 9.

Notes to Ch. 2, pp. 28–31 | 141 25. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 24. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Communionis notio: On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1992), 5, citing 1 Cor 10:17; LG 3. 26. Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizoulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1993). 27. CCC 1386. 28. Cyril contended with Nestorianism, Novationism, and eventually Monophysitism (Eutychianism). 29. R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order, vol. 1, Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 220. 30. Neil McLynn, “Christian Controversy and Violence in the Fourth Century,” in Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity (Farnham, UK, and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate/Variorum, 2009), 15–44. 31. Daniel Keating, Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006); Edmund Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1999). 32. Matthew Pereira, “The Internal Coherence of Cyril of Alexandria’s Pneumatology: Interpreting the 7th Dialogue of the Dialogues of the Trinity,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 62, no. 3/4 (2010): 72. 33. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John 11; St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82.5. 34. See Allen and Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, chapter 5. 35. See “Cappadocian Koinonia,” in Ecumenism, Christian Origins and the Practice of Communion, by Nicholas Sagovsky (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chapter 7, and “Augustine and the Story of Communion,” in ibid., chapter 8. 36. Despite the Dominican Order’s resistance, the mediaeval popes appointed hundreds of the brethren as bishops, twenty-eight of them as cardinals, and several as masters of the Sacred Palace, apostolic penitentiaries, or inquisitors; two found themselves elected pope—as was a third in the Renaissance. 37. Humbert of Romans, Letter to Albert the Great (1260) in Peter of Prussia, Vita Alberti (1487), 253; Joachim Sighart, Albert the Great: His Life and Scholastic Labours (London: Washbourne, 1976), 208–11. 38. Edward Mahoney, “Albert the Great on Christ and Hierarchy,” in Christ among the Medieval Dominicans, ed. K. Emery and J. Wawrykow (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 365. Michael Sirilla, The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles (Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017), 24, notes that “Albert identifies the essence of the hierarchical state as a participation in the grace of divine illumination in which the hierarch pours forth that same illumination on his sub-

142 | Notes to Ch. 2, pp. 31–33 ordinates. For one to enter the fullness of the hierarchical state, it is required that he first undergo a conversion by way of purging; second, that he be illuminated in divine knowledge assimilating him to the divine life; and third, that he enters perfection properly speaking, consisting in the activity of illuminating his subordinates”; citing St. Albert the Great, Summa theologiae II, tr. 10, q. 37, m. 2; Albert the Great, On Dionysius on Church Hierarchy. 39. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 24–25, citing Albert the Great, Commentary on Book 2 of Lombard’s Sentences d. 9, a. 1; Albert the Great, Summa theologiae II, tr. 10, q. 39, m. 2, ad 3; Albert the Great, On Dionysius on Church Hierarchy, cap. 5. 40. Mahoney, “Albert the Great,” 376–77; Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 26. 41. Mahoney, “Albert the Great,” 377–78; Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 26–27, citing Albert the Great, On Dionysius on Church Hierarchy, cap. 5. 42. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 27–29, citing Bonaventure, Commentary on Book 2 of Lombard’s Sentences d. 11, a. 1, q. 1; Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences d. 24, a. 2, q. 3; d. 25, a. 1, q. 1; Breviloqium, pars 6, cap 12.5. 43. Aquinas, Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences 7.3.1b, ad 3; 24.2.1b, co.; 24.3.2b. 44. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 183–86. See Ulrich Horst, Bischöfe und Ordensleute: Cura principalis animarum und via perfectionis in der Ekklesioogie des h. Thomas von Aquin (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999); Noel Molloy, “Hierarchy and Holiness: Aquinas on the Holiness of the Episcopal State,” Thomist 39 (1975): 198– 252; L. M. Orrieux,“L’Evêque ‘perfector’ selon le Pseudo-Denys et saint Thomas,” in L’Evêque dans l’église du Christ, ed. H. Bouëssé, P. Benoît, and L. M. Orrieux (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963), 237–42. 45. Vatican Council II, Lumen gentium 9–13, esp. chapter 5. 46. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 185. 47. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 184, a. 4. Citing the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28ff), Aquinas notes that one may say yes to entering a state of perfection but then fail to observe it, while another son may say no but ultimately do the Father’s will: ST II-II, q. 184, a. 4. See Stephen Pope, “Overview of the Ethics of Aquinas,” in The Ethics of Aquinas, ed. Stephen Pope (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2002), 48. 48. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 186, a. 10. 49. Aquinas, On Hebrews ch. 13, lect. 3. 50. Mt 25:14–30; Lk 12:42–48; cf. 1 Tm 6:20; 2 Tm 1:12–14. 51. Aquinas, Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences 7.3.1b, s.c. 1– 2; ST II-II, q. 184, a. 7, ad 3. In what is an uncharacteristic display of personal petticoat, Thomas argues strongly in ST II-II, q. 188, a. 4, and q. 188, a. 6 that “it is very fitting to establish a religious institute for preaching and the salvation of souls” and that “religious institutes dedicated to preaching and teaching have the highest place because they are closest to the perfection of bishops”! So it is that St. Thomas reads the story of Martha and Mary as a competition between the one who sits at the Lord’s feet in the contemplative

Notes to Ch. 2, pp. 33–35 | 143 life—the monk or nun—and the one working in the kitchen in the active life—the secular priest or layperson; Mary’s part is better. But now comes Thomas’s more daring claim, one with less warrant in scripture: Martha’s active part is still good; Mary’s contemplative part is (as the Lord observes) better; but what would be best would be a third sister who mixed the best qualities of each—both the contemplative and the active life—and that means bishops and friars; cf. Jean-Pierre Torrell, Aquinas: The Person and Work (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2023), 108; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master (The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 356–57; M.-M. Labourdette, “L’idéal dominicain,” Revue thomiste 92 (1992): 344–54; A. Motte, “La définition de la vie religieuese selon saint Thomas d’Aquin,” Revue thomiste 87 (1987), 442–53. Torrell nonetheless notes St. Thomas’s very positive view of “the secular” at Saint Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, 245–51, 307–8. 52. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 183, a. 4. 53. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 184, a. 4 and 5. 54. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 184, a. 5. 55. Jn 10:15; ST II-II, q. 184, a. 4 and 5. 56. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 185, a. 4. Perhaps excusing his friend and mentor or Albert for resigning his see after only three years, Thomas notes at q. 185, a. 5 if the salvation of his subjects can be sufficiently provided for in the absence of the Shepherd, then it is lawful for the Shepherd to leave his flock, “whether it be for some benefit to the Church or because of personal danger.” 57. Aquinas, ST III, q. 64, a. 2, ad 3. Cf. Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences 24.3.2 sol. 1, ad 3; On 2 Corinthians, prologue. 58. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 32–34, 39–41. 59. Mt 11:25–26. 60. Aquinas, On the Matthew’s Gospel 1.12; On John’s Gospel 1.15; On 2 Corinthians 1.1. 61. Aquinas, ST III, q. 43, a. 3, ad. iii; On the Psalms 8.2; On Matthew’s Gospel 4.2; On John’s Gospel 1.1; On Romans 1.4; On 2 Corinthians 4.1; On Ephesians 1.1. 62. Aquinas, On Ephesians 1.3–4. 63. Aquinas, Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences 24.1.3a, s.c. 2; ST II-II, q. 45, a. 5; III, q. 64, a. 2, ad 3; q. 67, a. 2, ad 1; q. 185, a. 3; On 2 Corinthians 1.1, prol.; On 1 Timothy, e.g., 2:217 and 233; 2:285. Opusculum IV, c. 2. 64. Aquinas, On 2 Timothy 2:265–71; lect. 3 and lect 4. 65. Peter Lombard, On 1 Timothy; Aquinas, On 1 Timothy; cf. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 114. 66. Aquinas, On 2 Timothy 2:267. 67. Aquinas, On Perfecting the Spiritual Life, ch. 16; ST II-II, q. 184, a. 5, ad 2; a. 7, ad 2 and 3; q. 185, a. 3, co; Quodlibetal Questions III, q. 4, a. 1. 68. E.g., Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 108, a. 4, ad 1 and 5; q. 184; On 1 Timothy 2:237; On 2 Timothy 2:267; cf. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 109.

144 | Notes to Ch. 2, p. 35; Ch. 3, pp. 37–41 69. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 108, a. 4, ad 5 and resp 5. 70. Aquinas, On 1 Timothy 2:213, 2:219, 2:231–33; cf. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, chapter 4. 71. Molloy, “Hierarchy and Holiness,” 227, citing Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 184, a. 5, and Quodlibetal Questions IV.12.1, ad 7; cf. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 14. 72. Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 13, citing Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 183–85, and following Molloy, “Hierarchy and Holiness,” 206–9. Likewise, Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 15, 40– 41, 135–50.

CHAPTER 3: Vatican II and since on Collegiality and Synodality 1. St. Paul VI, Solemn Opening of the Second Session of the Second Vatican Council, September 29, 1963. See also Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), 67, and Robert Vicchi, The Major Basilicas of Rome (Florence: Scala Press, 1999). 2. Venite Benedicti Patris Mei Percipite Regnum Q[uod] V[obis] P[reparatum] A[b] O[rigine] M[undi (Mt 25:34). 3. 1 Tm 4:11. 4. See Mt 16:16 and Phil 2:10, respectively. 5. Vatican Council II, LG 1, 9, 48; SC 5, 26; GS 42, 45; AG 1, 5. 6. SC 5. 7. LG 1, SC 48; GS 42 and 45; AG 1. Also, Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores: Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops (2004): 6–7. 8. LG 9. 9. SC 48; GS 45; AG 5. 10. St. Augustine, Tractatus in Ioannem VI, n. 13. 11. Tracey Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 85. See also Aidan Nichols, Conciliar Octet: A Concise Commentary on the Eight Key Texts of the Second Vatican Council (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019), 53. 12. The importance of a sacramental character to the notion of People of God can be found in Yves Congar’s “The Church: The People of God,” in The Church and Mankind (Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1965), 36–37; Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 53. 13. Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 79; GS 42. 14. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of the Diocese of Rome in Preparation for the Synod on Synodality, September 18, 2021. 15. GS 1. 16. See Avery Dulles,“Nature, Mission, and Structure of the Church,” in Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition, ed. M. Lamb and M. Levering (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 33. 17. Dulles, “Nature, Mission, and Structure,” 31. See also LG 48. 18. LG 18–20.

Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 41–44 | 145 19. LG 19, 21, and 22; cf. Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores, 9–17. 20. See here Karl Rahner’s commentary on Lumen gentium: H. Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), 1:198. See also the appendix in Nota praevia explicativa, which clarifies some of the subtleties behind the term “college,” and Pope St. John Paul II, Pastores Gregis: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Bishop as Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World (2003), 8. 21. AG 19–20; Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores, 12–17; CIC 782–92. 22. LG 23. 23. LG 22. 24. LG 22; Nota praevia explicativa (Notification appended to LG from the Acts of the Council by the Secretary General of the Council, November 16, 1964); cf. Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus: Dogmatic Decree on the Church of Christ and the Papacy (1870). 25. “The Head and the Neck,” My Big Fat Greek Wedding, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbC5AfxqPc. 26. Likewise in LG 25, whereby the infallibility of the church is found in the pope, in the body of the bishops exercising the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter, and in the whole church believing in communion with the pope and bishops. The International Theological Commission, Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church (2014), which offers some helpful frames for the idea of sensus fidei. It depends upon: active listening to the word of God and participation in the life of the church; openness to reason illuminated by faith and adherence to the magisterium; holiness and seeking the edification of the church. 27. LG 22. 28. For a detailed analysis on collegiality and the idea of proportionality between Peter and the Twelve and thus between the pope and bishops, see Joseph Ratzinger’s comments on the Nota praevia explicative, in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. H. Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), 1:300–301. 29. Pope Francis, Address to Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops, October 17, 2015; cf. Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, October 18, 2014. See also Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (EG) (2013), 16, 46. 30. Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops 1985, Relatio Finalis [RF], II.C.1. 31. See, for example, interchurch documents: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia: Report of the International Consultation between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Alliance (2002); Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commis-

146 | Notes to Ch. 3, p. 44 sion II, The Church as Communion (1990); Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, Perspective on Koinonia (1989); Christian Church/Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic Dialogue, The Church as Communion in Christ (1992); Catholic-World Methodist Council Dialogue, Sharing in Apostolic Communion (1996); USCCB Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries (2005); World Council of Churches, The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling—The Canberra Statement (Canberra: WCC, 1991). From theologians: Miika Ahola, “The Unity We Have Not Found: The Ontology of Relation in Koinonia,” Ecumenical Review 70, no. 3 (2018): 470–83; Thomas Best and Gunther Gassman, eds., On the Way to Fuller Koinonia (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993); Lucian Bot, “Koinonia as Relation and Service in Ecumenical Dialogue,” Ecumenical Review 70, no. 3 (2008): 511–25; Catherine Clifford, ed., For the Communion of the Churches (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010); Lorelei Fuchs, Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008); Philip Goyret, Church and Communion: An Introduction to Ecumenical Theology (Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022); Philip Kariatlis, “Affirming Koinonia Ecclesiology: An Orthodox Perspective,” Phromema 27, no. 1 (2012): 51–66; Tracey Rowland, The Anglican Patrimony in Catholic Communion (London and New York: T. and T. Clark, 2021); Jerry Sandridge, Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue 1977–1982: A Study in Developing Ecumenism (Frankfurt: Lang, 1987). 32. St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici: Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful (1988—where the term “communion” appears 135 times); Redemptoris missio: Encyclical on the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate (1990—30 times); Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992); Ut unum sint: Encyclical on Commitment to Ecumenism (1995—125 times!), Novo millenio ineunte (2000—32 times), Pastores Gregis: Apostolic Exhortation on the Bishop as Servant of the Gospel for the Hope of the World (2003— 128 times) and Ecclesia de Eucharistia: Encyclical on the Eucharist in its Relationship to the Church (2003—92 times). 33. Pope Benedict XVI, Deus caritas est: Encyclical on Christian Love (2005— communion appears 10 times); Sacramentum caritatis: Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist as Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission (2007— communion appears 70 times); Pope Francis, Lumen fidei: Encyclical on Faith (2013—communion appears 18 times); Fratelli tutti: Encyclical on Fraternity and Social Friendship (2020—communion 7 times and fraternity/ fraternal 73 times); Christus vivit: Apostolic Exhortation to Young People (2019—fraternal/fraternity 21 times and communion 2); Amoris laetitia: Apostolic Exhortation on Love in the Family (2016—communion 31 times and fraternal/fraternity 16 times); and Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel Today (2013—communion 20 times and fraternal/fraternity 18 times). 34. Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops 1985, Relatio Finalis [RF] (1985—the word “communion” appears 32 times); Congregation for the

Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 44–45 | 147 Doctrine of the Faith, Communionis notio: On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion [CN] (1992—61 times); Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores (142 times including indices); Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993): 125 times). 35. LG 48; GS 78; UR 5; CCC 255, 259, 267, 357, 533, 689, 732, 737–38, 772–73, 775, 850, 1107, 1445, 1693, 1702, 2419, 2790; RF II; CN 3, citing Phil 3:20–21; Col 3:1–4; 1 Jn 1:3; St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici: Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and the World (1988), 19; Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores, 7. 36. LG 2–4, 14, 48; CCC 27, 45, 54, 257–60, 357, 669, 779, 787–96, 874, 1107, 1380, 1693, 1702; RF II.C.1; CN 4. LG 8: “Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all”; Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae: Encyclical on Christians as Citizens, January 10, 1890; Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: Encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ the Church, 1. CN 6, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 29, a. 4, c. LG 13: “All men are called to belong to the new people of God. Wherefore this people, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and must exist in all ages, so that the decree of God’s will may be fulfilled. In the beginning God made human nature one and decreed that all His children, scattered as they were, would finally be gathered together as one (cf. Heb 1:2). It was for this purpose that God sent His Son . . . the head of the new and universal people of the sons of God. For this too God sent the Spirit of His Son as Lord and Life-giver. He it is who brings together the whole Church and each and every one of those who believe, and who is the well-spring of their unity in the teaching of the apostles and in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers (Acts 2:42).” 37. LG 2 and 26; CCC 946–62, 1476; RF II.C.1; CN 3–5. 38. LG 3 and 26; CCC 805, 1071–72, 1166, 1325–31, 1354–55, 1382, 1395–96, 1416, 2637; RF II.C.1; CN 5, 11. CCC 1325: “The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.” CCC 1329: “By the Breaking of the Bread (the Mass) the disciples signified that all who eat the one broken bread that is Christ’s Body and drink of the one chalice that is Christ’s Blood, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.” CN 14 notes that “every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union with the proper Bishop, the Pope and the college of bishops, with all the clergy and with the entire people.” 39. UR 2; CCC 79, 688, 749, 768, 797, 800, 852, 1105–9, 1111, 1353. 40. CD 11; CIC 368–69; CCC 385–87, 761, 817–19, 823–35, 879, 886, 1369, 1420, 1472, 1560, 1594–95, 2089. LG 13: “It follows that though there are many nations

148 | Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 45–47 there is but one people of God, which takes its citizens from every race, making them citizens of a kingdom which is of a heavenly rather than of an earthly nature. All the faithful, scattered though they be throughout the world, are in communion with each other in the Holy Spirit, and so,‘he who dwells in Rome knows that the people of India are his members’ (cf. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John 65, 1). . . . The Church in this is mindful that she must bring together the nations”; CN 7–10, using the formula Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis (The Church in and formed out of the Churches) and Ecclesiae in et ex Ecclesia (The Churches in and formed out of the Church). 41. CCC 2, 6, 551, 730, 738, 768, 782, 811, 828–31, 849–60, 873, 886, 898–913, 952–53, 1033, 1122, 1223, 1397, 1435, 1825, 1941, 2068, 2208, 2405, 2443–49; RF II.D.6; CN 4. 42. LG 15: “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter”; Cf. UR 1, 15; CCC 816–22, 839–45, 855, 1271, 1400, 1443, 1636; RF II.C.7; CN 17, 18. 43. CCC 946–62, 1045, 1055, 1331, 1684–90, 2635; CN 6. 44. CCC 734, 817, 1440–48, 1455, 1804. 45. CCC 154, 185, 188, 949–53, 1102, 1209, 2565, 2655, 2682, 2689, 2713, 2799, 2801; RF I.1; CN 6. 46. LG 14, 18–21; CCC 84, 1301; CN 4, 12–13, citing St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.1–3; St. Cyprian, Epistle 27.1; St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 4, 5; St. Augustine, Tract on the Gospel of John 46.5, and Against the Enemies of the Law and the Prophets 1, 20, 39; Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores, 8. 47. See, for example, LG 25: “Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place (Cf. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.1). . . . Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent”; CCC 426– 29, 519–21, 949. 48. Vatican Council II, Christus Dominus: Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (1965), 3–6. 49. CD 37–44. 50. St. John Paul II, Apostolos suos: Motu Proprio on the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences (1998): 6 and 14. So, too, Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores 12, 22, 28–32. 51. Apostolos suos 8. 52. Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum successores 12b. 53. LG 18–25; CCC 77, 84–97, 175, 813–22, 888–92. 54. LG 26, citing Oratio consecrationis episcopalis in ritu byzantine, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8.1, and Oratio mozarabica; CCC 84,

Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 47–48 | 149 946–62, 1071–75, 1097, 1108–9, 1120–21, 1142, 1299, 1309, 1312–13, 1331, 1369, 1462, 1538, 1561, 1569, 1576, 2565, 2698, 2713, 2801. 55. CCC 1055, 1684–90, 2635; NMI 43. 56. LG 28, citing St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 4. 57. LG 13 and 23; CCC 790–91, 813–22, 873–74, 886–87, 894–96, 947, 951, 1396, 1416 (on “communion of charisms”); RF II.C.1–3; Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993) http://www. christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/documenti/testo-in-inglese.html; CN 15 and 16. 58. Pope Francis, Address to the Roman Curia, December 23, 2021. 59. CD 36. 60. Paul VI, Apostolica sollicitudo: Motu Proprio Establishing the Synod of Bishops for the Universal Church (1965). 61. Paul VI, Angelus at the 3rd General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, September 22, 1974. 62. Apostolica sollicitudo II, no. 2. John Paul II, Address to the Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, April 30, 1983, 3, explicitly associated synods with Lumen gentium’s understanding of collegiality, calling them a “particularly fruitful” and “valuable instrument” of episcopal collegiality. 63. Starting with Acts, chapter 15, the International Theological Commission outlines the history of the idea in Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church (2018), 3–30. 64. Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, 31. 65. Pope Francis, Address to the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, October 4, 2014; Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, October 18, 2014; Introductory Remarks for the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, October 5, 2015; Address to Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Institution of the Synod of Bishops, October 17, 2015; Address at the Conclusion of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, October 24, 2015; Episcopalis communio: Apostolic Constitution on the Synod of Bishops, September 15, 2018; Address at the Opening of the Synod of Bishops on Youth, October 3, 2018; Homily at Mass for the Conclusion of the Synod of Bishops on Youth, October 28, 2018; Address at the Opening of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region, October 7, 2019; Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region, October 26, 2019; Address to the Faithful of Rome, September 18, 2021; Address for the Opening of the Path to the Synod on Synodality, October 9, 2021; Homily for Mass Opening the Synodal Path to the Synod on Synodality, October 10, 2021; Address to the Roman Curia, December 23, 2021. 66. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 67. Pope Francis, Address for the Opening of the Synodal Path. Likewise in his Address to the Roman Curia (2021) the pope said, “The Synod wants to be an experience of feeling ourselves all members of a larger people, the holy and faithful People of God.”

150 | Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 48–50 68. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome: “The word synod says it all: it means ‘journeying together’... [a synodal Church is one] seeking answers in God’s revelation through a pilgrim hermeneutic capable of persevering in the journey begun in the Acts of the Apostles. This is important: the way to understand and interpret is through a pilgrim hermeneutic, one that is always journeying. The journey that began after the Council? No. The journey that began with the first Apostles and has continued ever since. Once the Church stops, she is no longer Church, but a lovely pious association, for she keeps the Holy Spirit in a cage. A pilgrim hermeneutic capable of persevering in the journey begun in the Acts of the Apostles. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would be demeaned.” 69. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 70. Pope Francis, Address for 50th Anniversary of Synod of Bishops; Episcopalis communio, 6. See also ITC, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, 36. 71. Pope Francis, Homily for Mass Opening the Synodal Path. See also Listening with the Ear of the Heart: Message for the 56th World Day of Communications, January 24, 2022. 72. In this context the pope has often quoted Gustav Mahler on fidelity to tradition not consisting in worshiping ashes but in keeping a fire burning, and St. Vincent of Lérins on the organic development of the tradition “consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age.” “For reality, including theology, is like water; unless it keeps flowing, it becomes stagnant and putrefies. A stagnant Church starts to decay”; Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 73. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 74. Pope Francis, Address for the Opening of the Synodal Path. 75. Pope Francis, Address to the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family. 76. Pope Francis, Homily for Mass Opening the Synodal Path. 77. Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (2013), 3 and 130; Address for 50th Anniversary of the Synod of Bishops. 78. Pope Francis, Address for the Opening of the Path to the Synod on Synodality, October 9, 2021. 79. Pope Francis, Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family, 2015. 80. Pope Francis, Address for the Opening of the Synodal Path; Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family 2015; Address to the Faithful of Rome; Address to the Catholic Action of France, January 13, 2022. 81. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 82. Pope Francis, Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family 2015. 83. Pope Francis, Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family 2015. 84. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Explorations in Theology, vol. 1, The Word Made Flesh (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 150. 85. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 375.

Notes to Ch. 3, pp. 51–53; Ch. 4, pp. 57–67 | 151 86. Pope Francis, Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family 2015. 87. Lk 24:13–35. 88. Pope Francis, Address for 50th Anniversary of Synod of Bishops. 89. Pope Francis, Homily for Mass Opening the Synodal Path. 90. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 91. Pope Francis, Homily for Mass Opening the Synodal Path. 92. Pope Francis, Introductory Remarks for the Synod on the Family 2015, emphasis in original. 93. Michael Czerny, “Towards a Synodal Church,” in La Civiltà Cattolica; Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome. 94. Pope Francis, Address to the Faithful of Rome; likewise in Address to the Symposium for New Bishops, September 19, 2013; EG 31; Episcopalis communio, 5c. 95. Pope Francis, Address to the Roman Curia 2021. 96. Pope Francis, Episcopalis communio, 8, quoting Paul VI, Address for the Opening of the First Synod of Bishops, September 30, 1967, and CIC 339.2. 97. Pope Francis, Episcopalis communio, 6b. 98. Pope Francis, Address for 50th Anniversary of Synod of Bishops. 99. Pope Francis, Address for 50th Anniversary of Synod of Bishops, citing Vatican Council I, Pastor aeturnus: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Papacy (1870), ch. IV, and Pope Francis, Address at the Conclusion of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family 2014. 100. Pope Francis, Episcopalis communio, 10b and c. 101. Pope Francis, Address for 50th Anniversary of Synod of Bishops.

PA R T I I : L I V I N G E P I S C O PA L U N I T Y CHAPTER 4: Episcopal Spirituality 1. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (London: G. Bles, 1942), 113. 2. Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis: Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission (2007), 52–63. See also Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, commemorative ed. (1978; repr. Ignatius Press, 2018). 3. Is 2:2, 4. 4. Geoffrey Preston, God’s Way to Be Man: Meditations on Following Christ through Scripture and Sacrament (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1978), 85–86. 5. “How Do You Rate the Quality of Liturgy in Your Parish?,” America, September 21, 2017; Robert Barron, “The 5 Qualities of Good Preaching,” Word on Fire, 2016, 3; Roger Landry, “Why Are Catholic Homilies So Short and Light on Scripture?,” National Catholic Register, December 23, 2019; William Cardinal Levada, The Homilist: Teacher of the Faith, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith website, February 1, 2008; Lauren Markoe, “Preaching Key to Attracting

152 | Notes to Ch. 4, pp. 69–72; Ch. 5, pp. 75–78 Church-Shoppers, Survey Finds,” Crux, August 25, 2016; Patricia Montemurri, “Hallelujah! Actors Help Future Priests Amp Up Sermons,” Detroit Free Press, May 17, 2015; Thomas Reese, “Preaching and Hospitality Fill Churches,” National Catholic Reporter, August 25, 2016; Lydia Saad, “Sermon Content Is What Appeals Most to Churchgoers,” Gallup Social and Policy Issues, April 14, 2017; Christian Smith,“The Sociology of a Superb Sermon,” Church Life Journal, April 30, 2019; USCCB, Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily (Washington, D.C., 2012), 2; Greg Watts, “View from the Pew: Preaching,” Faith Magazine, May–June 2021; Joshua Whitfield, The Crisis of Bad Preaching: Redeeming the Heart and Way of the Catholic Preacher (Notre Dame, Ind.: Ave Maria Press, 2019); Petr Živný,“Homiletic Communication: Catholic-Protestant Comparison Study,” Angelicum 93, no. 3 (2016): 615–30. 6. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, q. 38. 7. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, q. 40, a. 6. 8. Lk 1:6–7, 18, 25, 36; 2:22–32. 9. Hans Urs von Balthasar,“Casta meretrix,” in Explorations in Theology, vol. 2, Spouse of the Word (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 193–288. 10. Phil 4:8–9, 23.

CHAPTER 5: Episcopal Friendship 1. Heb 5:1. 2. Heb 4:5. 3. “The holy one”: Mt 1:24; Lk 1:35; 4:34; 9:26; Jn 2:21; 6:69; Acts 4:27, 30; 13:35; 1 Pt 1:15–16; Rv 15:4; “blameless, unstained, separated . . .”: Heb 7:26. Regarding consecration (being “set apart”), see Jn 17:17–19; Rom 12:1; 15:16; 1 Cor 3:16–17; 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Thes 5:23; Eph 1:4, 13; 2:21; 5:26–27; Col 1:22; 3:12; 2 Tm 1:9, 14; Ti 3:5; Heb 3:1; 13:12; 1 Pt 2:5, 9; Rv 20:6. 4. Jn 10:30; cf. Jn 1:18; 3:13, 31; 5:22; 6:44, 46, 65; 7:28; 14:6; 17:11, 21–23. 5. Heb 5:5–6, 10; 7:11–22. 6. Heb 7:27–28; 9:23–10:18. 7. Heb 5:9. 8. Acts 1:12–26; 6:1–6; 7; 13:2, 3; Rom 1:1; 1 Tm 1:12; 2:7; 2 Tm 1:11; cf. 1 Cor 12:28. 9. Acts 13:3; 14:23; 1 Tm 4:14; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5. 10. Heb 5:1–4; 8:3. 11. Heb 3:12–13; 5:7–14; 13:7–9. 12. Strengthening in faith: Heb 5:12–6:2; 11:1–12:11. Avoiding sin: Heb 12:12–29. Offering pleasing sacrifices: Heb 13. 13. John Luttrel, Norman Thomas Gilroy: An Obedient Life (Sydney: St. Pauls, 2017), 307. 14. Luttrel, Norman Thomas Gilroy, 388. 15. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1879–80), book VI, ch. 3. 16. Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit (1944), last scene.

Notes to Ch. 5, pp. 79–84 | 153 17. St. Catherine of Siena, Letters II.46; Dialogue, chs. 153, 157. 18. Pope Francis, Address to the U.S. Bishops, Washington, D.C., September 23, 2015, citing Mt 11:28–30. 19. St. Augustine, Sermon 340 (On the Anniversary of His Ordination), 292. 20. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 114. He sometimes uses amicitia interchangeably with affabilitas. 21. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 168, a. 2; cf. I-II, q. 25, a. 2; q. 31, a, 1, ad 2. 22. Ps 132:1, quoted at the beginning of the Rule of Augustine, which was adopted in the Constitutions of the Friars Preachers. 23. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.7; 4.8. 24. St. Augustine, On Music 2.15. 25. St. John Cassian, Conferences of the Fathers 24.21, recalled in Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 168, a. 2, co. 26. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 168, a. 2, co., citing Cicero, On Duties 1.29, and Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 168, a. 3, co. 27. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 168, a. 4, co., following Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 4.8. 28. Examples of closeness: Mt 15:4; 19:19; Lk 1:49; 2:19, 33–34, 51; Jn 2:1– 11, 12; 19:25–27; Acts 1:14. Examples of tension: Mt 12:46–50; 19:29 (but see Lk 1:38); Mk 3:21; Lk 2:34–35, 48; 14:26; Jn 7:3–5. 29. Mk 10:21. 30. Mt 4:13; 8:14–15; 17:24; Mk 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; Lk 4:23; Jn 2:12; 4:46; 6:17, 24, 59. 31. Mt 21:17; Mk 11:11; Lk 10:38–42; 24:50; Jn 11:1–45; 12:1–8. 32. Jn 12:1–8. 33. Lk 24:50. 34. Partly this reflected Jesus’ Jewish culture: his relatives, especially his good Jewish mother, seek to ensure that his ministry does not get in the way of his having proper meals; Peter’s mother-in-law, cured of her fever, gets up immediately to serve them supper; Jesus having raised Jarius’s daughter, his first direction was to give her food; and his dear friends Martha and Mary squabble over serving the dinner: Mt 8:14–15; Mk 3:19–21; 5:42; Lk 10:38–42; Jn 4:31; 12:1–8. 35. Mt 14:13–21; Jn 2:1–11; Jn 21. 36. Mt 26:20–30; Jn 6 and 13. 37. Mk 16:14; Lk 24:13–36; Jn 21. 38. Vineyards, grapes, wine, spirits and vinegar: Mt 6:25, 31; 7:16; 9:17; 11:18–19; 20:1–16, 22–23; 21:28–41; 24:38, 49; 26:27, 29, 42; 27:34, 48; Mk 2:22; 10:38–39; 12:1–12; 14:25; 15:23, 36; Lk 1:15; 5:30, 33, 37–39; 6:44; 7:33–34; 10:7, 34; 12:19, 29, 45; 20:9–15; 22:18; 23:36; Jn 2:1–11; 4:46; 15:1–8; 17:8, 27–28; 18:11; 19:29–30. Wheat, flour, barley, yeast, and bread: Mt 3:12; 4:3–4; 6:11; 7:9; 12:4; 13; 14:17, 19; 15:33–36; 16:5–12; 26:17, 26; Mk 2:26; 6:8, 37–44, 52; 8:4–6, 14–19; 14:1, 12, 20, 22; Lk 3:17; 4:3–4; 6:4; 9:3, 13, 16; 11:3, 5–10; 12:1; 13:21; 14:15; 15:17; 16:7; 22:1, 7, 19, 30–31; 24:30, 35; Jn 4:31–38; 6; 12:24. About orchards, fruit trees, olives,

154 | Notes to Ch. 5, pp. 84–86 oil, figs, mulberries, and other fruit: Mt 3:8, 10; 6:17; 7:15–20; 12:33; 13:23; 21:1, 18–21, 43; 24:3, 32; 25:3–8; 26:29–30; Mk 4:20; 6:13; 11:1, 12–14, 20–21; 13:23, 28; 14:25–26; Lk 1:42; 3:8–9; 6:43–44; 7:46; 8:14–15; 10:34; 11:12; 13:6–9; 16:6; 17:6; 19:29, 37; 21:29, 37; 22:18, 39; Jn 1:48; 4:36; 8:1; 12:24; 15:2–8, 16. About eggs, pigeons, fish, beef, lamb, pig, goat, and a fatted calf: Mt 4:18–19; 7:6, 10; 8:30–33; 13:47–50; 14:12, 17, 19; 15:34, 36; 17:27; 21:12; 22:4; 25:32–33; Mk 1:16–17; 5:11– 16; 6:38–43; 8:7, 32–34; 11:15; 25:32–33; Lk 2:14, 16, 24; 5:2, 6, 9; 9:13, 16; 10:3; 11:11–12; 15:15–30; 22:7; 24:42; Jn 1:29, 36; 2:14–15; 6; 13:18, 26–30, 21:3–17. About salt, honey, and herbs and spices: mint, dill/anise, cumin, rue, mustard seeds, and myrrh: Mt 2:11; 5:13; 13:31–32; 17:20; 23:23; Mk 4:30–31; 9:49–50; 15:23; 16:1; Lk 11:42; 13:18–19; 14:34; 17:6; 23:56; 24:1; Jn 19:39–40. 39. Eating, drinking, table etiquette: Mt 15:26–27; 26:6–13; Mk 7:28; 14:3; 16:14; Lk 5:29–32; 7:36–48; 10:7; 11:37–39; 14:7–14; 16:21; 17:7–8; 22:14, 21, 27, 30; Jn 12:1–8; 13:4, 12. Prayer as asking for bread: Mt 6:11; Lk 11:3, 5–10. Forgiveness of prodigal son: Lk 15:11–32. Christian life as fruit/harvest: Mt 3:4, 8; 7:16–20; 9:37–38; 12:33; 13:23, 30, 39; 21:34, 41, 43; Mk 1:6; 4:20, 29; Lk 3:8–9; 6:43–44; 8:14–15; 10:2; 13:6–9; Jn 4:35–36; 12:24; 15:2–8, 16. Preaching as salt: Mt 5:13–16; Mk 9:50; Lk 14:34. Christian leaders as stewards/shepherds/parents feeding: Mt 9:36; 24:45–51; Mk 6:34; Lk 11:27–28; cf. Lk 16:1–13. God’s kingdom like a wedding party: Mt 9:15; 22:1–14; 25:1–13; Mk 2:19; Lk 5:34; 12:35–38; 14:7–24; cf. Jn 1–11. Eating at Christ’s table: Lk 22:18, 30. 40. My food is to do the Father’s will: Jn 4:31–34. The bread of life: Jn 6. Body and Blood: Mt 26:26–29; Mk 14:22–23; Lk 22:19–20; Jn 6:48–51; 1 Cor 11:17–33. Bread/Wine of the kingdom: Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 14:15; 22:18, 30. 41. Mt 11:9; Lk 7:34. 42. Dt 21:18–23; Prv 21:17; 23:20–21; 28:7; Eccl 31:12–42; 37:32–34. 43. St. Thomas Aquinas in ST II-II on temperance (qq. 141–70), affability (q. 114), playfulness (q. 168), and magnificence (q. 134). 44. Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (2013), 1. At paragraph 5 he continues, “The Gospel, radiant with the glory of Christ’s cross, constantly invites us to rejoice. A few examples will suffice. ‘Rejoice!’ is the angel’s greeting to Mary (Lk 1:28). Mary’s visit to Elizabeth makes John leap for joy in his mother’s womb (cf. Lk 1:41). In her song of praise, Mary proclaims,‘My spirit rejoices in God my Savior’ (Lk 1:47). When Jesus begins his ministry, John cries out, ‘For this reason, my joy has been fulfilled’ (Jn 3:29). Jesus himself ‘rejoiced in the Holy Spirit’ (Lk 10:21). His message brings us joy: ‘I have said these things to you, so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete’ (Jn 15:11). Our Christian joy drinks of the wellspring of his brimming heart. He promises his disciples, ‘You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy’ (Jn 16:20). He then goes on to say,‘But I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you’ (Jn 16:22). The disciples ‘rejoiced’ (Jn 20:20) at the sight of the risen Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that the first Christians ‘ate their food with glad and generous hearts’ (Acts 2:46). Wherever the

Notes to Ch. 5, p. 86; Ch. 6, pp. 89–92 | 155 disciples went,‘there was great joy’ (8:8); even amid persecution they continued to be ‘filled with joy’ (Acts 13:52). The newly baptized eunuch ‘went on his way rejoicing’ (Acts 8:39), while Paul’s jailer ‘and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God’ (Acts 16:34). Why should we not also enter into this great stream of joy?”

CHAPTER 6: Episcopal Preaching 1. St. John Henry Newman, Letter to J. D. Dalgairns, July 6, 1846, in The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, ed. Charles Stephen Dessain (London: Nelson, 1961), 11:195; cf. Letter to Dalgairns, July 21, 1846, in ibid., 212. 2. The first Dominican missionaries reached the West Indies in 1510, and the first Province of Dominicans was founded in the Americas in 1530. 3. The Dominican motto contemplare et aliis tradere contemplata is from St. Thomas Aquinas. 4. Charles Franklyn, Academical Dress from the Middle Ages to the Present Day (Lewes, Sussex: W. E. Baxter, 1970). 5. On some of these matters, see Michael Casey, Meaninglessness: The Solutions of Nietzsche, Freud and Rorty (Melbourne: Freedom, 2001); James Biser Whisker, Nihilism: The Philosophy of Nothingness (New York: Nova Science, 2021); Gideon Baker, Nihilism and Philosophy: Nothingness, Truth and World (London: Bloomsbury, 2019). 6. Jn 18:38. 7. E.g., Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2019); Robert N. Bellah, Habits of the Heart (New York: Harper and Row, 1985); Christopher Lasch, The Minimal Self (London: Norton, 1984); Chandran Kukathas, ed., John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (London: Routledge, 2003); Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (London: Duckworth, 1988); Hayden Ramsay, Beyond Virtue: Integrity and Morality (London: Macmillan, 1997); David Schindler, Heart of the World, Center of the Church: Communio Ecclesiology, Liberalism, and Liberation (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1996); Jeffrey Stout, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Stanley Hauerwas, The Flight from Authority: Religion, Morality and the Quest for Autonomy (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1981); Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). 8. See, for example, Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (London: Little Brown, 2019). 9. In my reflections here on truth I am especially influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate—a work that should be read not merely as a tract on epistemology, but as a work with important spiritual and practical implications— and the De Caritate in his Summa theologiae, which amongst other things emphasizes that truth-telling to our neighbor is not merely a requirement of truthfulness and justice, but an act of friendship.

156 | Notes to Ch. 6, pp. 92–101 10. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, §49; cf. John Paul II, Fides et ratio: Encyclical on the Relationship between Faith and Reason (1998). 11. Paul VI, Homily at Randwick Racecourse for the 200th Anniversary of Cook’s Arrival in Australia, Sydney, December 1, 1970, AAS 63 (1971): 62. 12. John Paul II, Ecclesia in Oceania, §18; cf. §7: “The Bishops spoke, for example, of a gradual lessening of the natural religious sense which has led to disorientation in people’s moral life and conscience. A large part of Oceania, particularly Australia and New Zealand, has entered upon an era marked by increasing secularization. In civic life, religion, and especially Christianity, is moved to the margin and tends to be regarded as a strictly private matter for the individual with little relevance to public life. Religious convictions and the insights of faith are at times denied their due role in forming people’s consciences. Likewise, the Church and other religious bodies have a diminished voice in public affairs. In today’s world, more advanced technology, greater knowledge of human nature and behavior, and worldwide political and economic developments pose new and difficult questions for the peoples of Oceania. In presenting Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Church must respond in new and effective ways to these moral and social questions without ever allowing her voice to be silenced or her witness to be marginalized.” 13. Benedict XVI, Address to a Meeting with Diocesan Clergy of Aosta, July 25, 2005. 14. St. Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi, 165, cited in John Paul II, Christifideles laici: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful (1988), 44. 15. St. John Paul II, Ecclesia in America: Post-Synodal Exhortation to the Church in the Americas (1999), 4. 16. Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (2013), 4. 17. Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 6:15–20; 10:17; 12:12–27; Eph 1:22–23; 3:6; 4:1–16; 5:23, 30; Col 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15. 18. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate. 19. EG 151. 20. EG 151. 21. EG 136. 22. EG 136–37. 23. EG 135. 24. EG 138. In the homily the church guides her members like a mother teaching a trusting child, listening to the child, knowing the child’s needs, speaking in the language and culture of the child (EG 140). 25. EG 143. 26. EG 142. 27. EG 144. 28. EG 144–45.

Notes to Ch. 6, pp. 101–5; Concl., pp. 107–9 | 157 29. EG 146–54. Practical resources to enrich our preaching include the use of some fact, story, or imagery that captures attention and illustrates the call of God’s word conversion, worship, fraternity, or service: EG 155–57. Homilies must be accessible, avoiding language or form that is incomprehensible to many, and positive, so that they inspire and encourage: EG 158–59. 30. EG 141. 31. Neh 8. 32. Acts 20:7–12. 33. EG 138. 34. 2 Tm 4:1–5.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 1. St. John Paul II, Ecclesia in America, 8–9; Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium, 3–8, 259–83. 2. EIA 12; cf. EG 9–13, 25–33, 110, 259–83. 3. EIA 12; cf. EG 24, 135–48, 155, 174–75, 260. 4. EIA 26–32; EG 14, 25–33, 176–258, 201. 5. EIA 14–19; cf. EG 123–24. 6. EIA 20–25, 58–65; cf. EG 52–75. 7. The word “communion” appears 89 times in EIA; related words also appear: “community” (27 times),“communal” (6),“fraternal” (19).“Communion” appears 20 times in EG, as well as “community” (40),“communal” (10), and “fraternal” (18). 8. Sharing in the riches of faith and communion with Christ and the saints: EIA 1, 5, 11, 15, 33, 66–74; EG 23, 130–31. Christian faith in a God who is communion: EIA 33, 68; EG 117, 178. Conversion leads to fraternal communion: EIA 26, 68; EG 30. The church as the sacrament of Communion: EIA 33; EG 130. Fraternal communion as the fruit of conversion: EIA 26; EG 138. Christian unity through communion with the Risen Lord: EIA 7, 1; EG 138, 2. Spirituality of communion: EIA 44; EG 89. A fraternal spirit should characterize Christians: EIA 9, 18. Welcoming and fraternal parishes: EIA 41; EG 28. Communion through the sacraments of initiation: EIA 34. Liturgical and especial Eucharistic Communion: EIA 12, 16, 26, 35. Pastoral planning and parish renewal: EIA 41, 44; EG 16, 30, 33; EG 28. Pastoral care of migrants: EIA 65; EG 210. Ecumenical outreach: EIA 14, 17, 49, 73; EG 244–47. Mutual assistance between priests: EIA 39. Promotion of vocations: EIA 40–43; EG 107. Pastoral outreach to the poor and outcast: EIA 58; EG 186–201. Christian action to ensure social, political, and economic structures that are more just and fraternal and that support “reconciled communion” and peace: EIA 18, 27, 28, 32, 52, 58, 62, 67, 68; EG 99, 176– 216, 239. 9. Bishops must: preserve the deposit of faith: EIA 33; EG 41, 51, 193, 260. Be agents of the new evangelization and discern needs and plans: EG 14–18, 30–33,

158 | Notes to Concl., pp. 109–11 73–74. Maintain communion with each other and the pope: EIA 33, 37; EG 32. Build communion within the local church: EIA 31, 33, 36, 37, 41; EG 31. Build communion with their priests, deacons, and seminarians: EIA 39, 40, 42. Ensure an atmosphere of fraternal encounter between bishops: EIA 4. Meet together: EIA 2, 4, 5. Engage in common prayer: EIA 33; EG 281–83. Strengthen ties with the Eastern churches: EIA 17, 38. Strengthen ties with other dioceses: EIA 36. Participate in the episcopal conference: EIA 33, 37; EG 51. Strengthen ties to the church in other nations: EIA 37. 10. Grandma St. Macrina the Elder (ca. 270–340) was the mother of St. Basil the Elder (e. 300s), who with St. Emmelia of Caesarea (d. 375) had nine or ten children. Five of these are recognized saints: Macrina Junior (ca. 327– 79), Basil the Great (ca. 329–79), Naucratius the Hermit (ca. 333–57), Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–ca. 394), and Peter of Sebaste (ca. 340–91. Also in their circle was St. Gregory Nazianzen Junior, “the Theologian” (ca. 329–ca. 389), son of St. Gregory Nazianzen the Elder (ca. 274–374) and St. Nonna (d. 374), and sibling to St. Gorgonia (d. ca. 372) and St. Caesarius of Nazianzen (d. 369), on whom see “Honoring holy motherhood: The saint who was the mother of five incredible saints,” ChurchPOP, May 10, 2019; Ferdinand Holböck, Married Saints and Blesseds (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 56–66; Meg HunterKilmer, “Meet the Family and Their Friends Who Gave the Church at Least a Dozen Saints,” Aletheia, May 25, 2017; Vincent O’Malley, Saintly Companions: A Cross-Reference of Sainted Relationships (New York: Alba House, 1994), 23– 25, 41, 51, 59, 63, 72–75, 83–84, 94–95, 103, 116, 131, 136–39, 146, 163, 175–77; Anna Silvas, Macrina the Younger, Philosopher of God (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008). The principal source for the lives of most of these is: St. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of St. Macrina the Virgin and St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration VIII: Panegyric for Gorgonia. On the three Cappadocian fathers, see the following references. 11. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 43: Panegyric for Basil of Caesarea, 17. 12. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 43: Panegyric for Basil of Caesarea, 14, 17, and 22, and About My Life, v. 230. On the imbalance and complexities of the friendship, see Brian Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus (London: Routledge, 2006), 3–25; Nicu Dumitraşcu, “The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus,” in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, ed. Nicu Dumitraşcu (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 63–81; John Manoussakis, “Friendship in Late Antiquity: The Case of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great,” in Ancient and Medieval Concepts of Friendship, ed. S. Stern-Gillet and G. Gurtler (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015), 173–96; John McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2001), 77–89; Neil McLynn,“Gregory Nazianzen’s Basil: The Literary Construction of a Christian Friendship,” Studia Patristica 27 (2001): 178–93; Caroline White, Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 13. St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 223 to Eustathius.

Notes to Concl., pp. 111–14 | 159 14. St. Gregory the Theologian, About My Life, 337–49. Cf. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 21, 101–4; J. Bertnes and T. Hägg, eds, Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006). 15. Neil McLynn,“What Was the ‘Philocalia of Origen?,’” in Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity (Farnham, UK, and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate/Varorioum, Routledge, 2009), 32–43. 16. St. Gregory the Theologian, Invectives against Julian. See McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus, 115–25. 17. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 36: On Himself and Those Who Allege He Ambitioned for the See of Constantinople. 18. A. Sykes, “Understandings of the Church in the Cappadocians,” in Studies of the Church in History, edited by Horton Davies (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1983), 74. 19. Sykes, “Understandings of the Church in the Cappadocians,” 75. 20. McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus, 126–227; Manoussakis, “Friendship,” 185–88. On Gregory of Nyssa, see Anna Marmodoro and Neil McLynn, Exploring Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical, Theological, and Historical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Martin Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Hans Urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). 21. As described in St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 9: Apologia to his Father Gregory in the Presence of Basil, When He Was Consecrated Bishop for Sasima. 22. St. Gregory the Theologian, About My Life, vv. 439–46. Cf. McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus, 197. 23. St. Gregory the Theologian, Letter 48: To Basil. 24. McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus, xxi. 25. On Gregory’s position: Christopher Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 153–234. Manoussakis, “Friendship,” 188–90, makes an interesting case for this in his reading of Gregory’s Letter 58: To Basil. Cf. McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus, 374. 26. St. Basil of Caesarea. 27. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity, 16–53. 28. St. Gregory the Theologian, Orations 27 to 31 on the Trinity; cf. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity; Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 41–49. 29. St. Gregory the Theologian, About My Life, vv. 655–57: he calls this “the feast of stones” because a crowd of monks and nuns from the city with assorted troublemakers forced their way into the house church where Gregory was celebrating and let fly a hail of stones. 30. George Papademetriou, “Saint Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 39 (1994): 1–6. 31. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 42: The Last Farewell.

160 | Notes to Concl., p. 114 32. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity, 54–62. 33. Manoussakis, “Friendship,” 190. 34. St. Gregory the Theologian, Letter 76 to Gregory of Nyssa; Oration 43: Panegyric for Basil of Caesarea, 16. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 54, describes it as “one of the most longstanding, famous, and stormy friendships in Christian history.” 35. Curran Bishop, “The pastoral theology of Gregory the Theologian,” https://www.academia.edu/8496067/The_Pastoral_Theology_of_Gregory_the_ Theologian?email_work_card=title; Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity, 235–70; Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 50–59. 36. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2: Flight to Pontus, 78–79: “The members [of the priesthood] are at war with one another, and the slight remains of love, which once existed, have departed, and priest is a mere empty name. Indeed, would that it were merely empty! . . . All fear has been banished from souls and shamelessness has taken its place . . . and we all become pious by simply condemning the impiety of others; and we claim the services of ungodly judges, and fling that which is holy to the dogs, and cast pearls before swine, by publishing divine things in the hearing of profane souls . . . and are not ashamed to go a whoring with our own inventions. . . . We have opened to all not the gates of righteousness, but, doors of railing and partisan arrogance; and the first place among us is given, not to one who in the fear of God refrains from even an idle word, but to him who can revile his neighbor most fluently.” 37. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2: Flight to Pontus, 3, 10–14, 47, and 69–72; Oration 20: On Theology and the Office of Bishops, 4 and 12; Oration 21: On Athanasius the Great, 7 and 9; Oration 43: Panegyric for Basil of Caesarea, 1 and 37. Cf. Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 57–58. 38. St. Gregory the Theologian. 39. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 1: On Easter, and My Reluctance, 6– 7; Oration 2: Flight to Pontus, 3, 16–17, 22, 28–29, 32–33, and 45; Spiritual Poems 2.1.12, 751–52. On deification, see John Arblaster and Rob Faesen, Mystical Doctrines of Deification: Case Studies in the Christian Tradition (New York: Routledge, 2018); Christopher Holmes, A Theology of the Christian Life: Imitating and Participating in God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2021). 40. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity, 246; Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus. 41. Oration 32: On Moderation in Theological Argument. 42. E.g., G. Clark and S. R. L. Clark, “Friendship in the Christian Tradition,” in The Dialectics of Friendship, ed. R. Porter and S. Tomaselli (London: Routledge, 1989), 26–44; Nicu Dumitrascu, “The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus,” in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, ed. Nicu Dumitrascu (Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 63–81; Manoussakis, “Friendship”; McGuckin, St. Gregory Nazianzus; Raymond Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia

Notes to Concl., p. 114–19 | 161 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003); White, Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century. 43. Aquinas, ST II-II ae, q. 40. 44. Aquinas, ST II-II ae, q. 33, and Disputed Questions on the Virtues 201. 45. Prv 3:12. 46. Ez 33:7–9; likewise, Jas 5:19–20: “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” 47. Mt 18:15–17. 48. Aquinas, ST II-IIae, q. 60, a. 4. 49. Aquinas, ST II-II ae, q. 33, a. 3. 50. Aquinas, ST II-II ae, q. 33, a. 7. 51. Aquinas, Disputed Questions on the Virtues, 201. 52. Lk 17:3; 2 Thes 3:15; 1 Tm 5:1–2, 19–20; 2 Tm 3:16–17; 4:2; Ti 3:10. 53. Gal 2:11–14. 54. 2 Tm 2:23–26. 55. Aquinas, Commentary on Book 3 of Lombard’s Sentences 35, 1, 3 sol. 3; On Perfecting the Spiritual Life, chs. 18, 19; ST II-II, q. 185, a. 8; q. 187, a. 4, ad 2; q. 188, a. 5, co.; III, q. 39, a. 3, ad 2; q. 67, a. 2, ad 1. See Michael G. Sirilla, The Ideal Bishop (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017), 14, 45, 115–28; Molloy, “Hierarchy and Holiness,” 202, 232–34, 236–37; Orrieux, “L’Evêque ‘perfector,’” 242. 56. Aquinas, Commentary on Book 3 of Lombard’s Sentences 35, 1, 3 sol. 3; Commentary on Book 4 of Lombard’s Sentences 7, 3, 1; 24, 1, 3b, ad 1; On Perfecting the Spiritual Life, ch. 18; Disputed Questions on Truth 9, 2, s.c. 1; 9, 3, co.; ST I, q. 1, a. 8; II-II, q. 182, a. 1, ad 1; q. 184, a. 7; q. 188, a. 6; On 1 Timothy, lect. 2–4; On 2 Timothy, lect. 3; Sirilla, Ideal Bishop, 115–28. Aquinas cites in support St. Gregory the Great, On Pastoral Care 2.6; Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5. 57. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 185, a. 3. 58. Aquinas, On 2 Timothy, lect. 3. 59. The prophet Jeremiah calls upon Israel’s leaders to “shepherd wisely and prudently” (Jer 3:15). St. Paul advises the young Bishop Titus to “show yourself to be a model in good works” (Ti 2:7; cf. 3:1, 8); and exhorts the Corinthians to be “imitators of me as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1), thereby insisting that church leaders must be exemplars of the Christian life. As Jesus says, “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do” (Jn 13:15). Commenting on these scripture passages, St. Thomas teaches that a prelate should be a living example for his disciples: On Titus, ch. 1, lect. 3; ch. 2, lect. 2. 60. Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree on the Reformation, c. 2, n. 9; Session 24, Decree on the Reformation, can. 4; LG 25: “Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and

162 | Notes to Concl., pp. 119–22 they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ. . . . In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” CD 12: “In exercising their duty of teaching—that is conspicuous among the principal duties of bishops—they should announce the Gospel of Christ to men.” 61. G. K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1909). 62. 2 Tm 4:2; 1 Tm 5:17; Ti 1:7–9. 63. Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (2013), 9–13. 64. Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium 12, citing 1 Jn 4:19 and 1 Cor 3:7. 65. Mt 14:22–32. 66. Mt 4:18–22; Mk 1:16–20; Jn 6:8; cf. Mt 8:5, 14; 10:2; 16:17; 17:24; Mk 1:21, 29; Lk 4:31, 38; Jn 1:40–44; 2:12; 21:15–17. 67. Mt 4:21; Lk 5:7, 10. 68. Mt 4:18–22. 69. Several who wanted to join Jesus’ apostles were turned away: Mt 7:21; 8:18–22; 9:12–13, 37; 10:38; 13:18–23; 19:21–22; Mk 5:18–19; 8:34; Lk 6:46; 9:57– 62; 14:27; 18:22–23; cf. Mt 9:12–13, 36–37. 70. Mt 10:2–3; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14. 71. Mt 5:44; 6:5–15; 21:22; 26:41; Mk 9:29; 11:24–25; 12:40; 14:38; Lk 6:28; 11:1–12; 18:1–14; 20:47; 21:36; 22:40. 72. Mt 13:10–17, 36–52; 16:5–12; 17:19–21; 20:17; 24:3; Mk 4:10–13, 33–34; 6:31–32; 9:28; 10:32; Lk 8:10; 9:10, 18; 10:23; 12:41; 18:31; Acts 1:2, 21–22. 73. Awe-struck: Mt 8:27; 21:20; Mk 4:41; 10:32; Lk 5:9, 26; 8:25; 9:43; 24:37; Jn 7:21. Frightened: Mt 8:25–26; 14:26–27; 17:6–7, 23; 26:22; Mk 4:38–40; 6:50; 9:6, 32–34; 10:32; Lk 5:10; 7:16; 8:25; 9:45; 24:37; Jn 6:19–20; 14:27; 20:19. Enlightened: Mt 13:51; 17:13. Confused: Mk 9:6; Lk 9:45; 18:34; 24:41. Depressed, “asleep for grief” or “weighed down with sleep”: Lk 9:32; 22:45. Elated: Mt 5:1– 12; 13:16–17, 44; 25:21, 23; 28:8; Lk 6:20–23; 9:10; 10:17; 19:37; 24:41, 52; Jn 15:11; 16:20–24; 17:13. 74. E.g., Mk 6:30; Lk 8:1; Acts 4:13. Jesus is “with” or “and” the disciples throughout the Gospels. 75. When he healed Simon’s mother-in-law: Mk 1:29–31. When he raised the dead girl: Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51. At the Transfiguration: Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28. Sent to prepare the Passover: Lk 22:8. On the last night: Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33. At Jesus’ trial and execution: Jn 18:15–16, 25; 19:26; cf. Mt 26:58, 69; Mk 14:54, 66; Lk 22:54. At the empty tomb: Jn 20:3–6; cf. Lk 24:12, 24. At Lake Galilee: Jn 20. Preaching and healing together: Acts 3:1–7, 11; 8:25. Testifying before the Council: Acts 4:1–19. Confirmation in Samaria: Acts 8:14–17. Other times too: Mk 13:3; Jn 13:23–26; 18:15; 21:2; Acts 1:13. 76. Simon as Satan/obstacle/deserter: Mt 16:23; 26:31–35; Mk 8:33. Simon as Cephas/Peter/Rock: Mt 4:18; 10:2; 16:16–19; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:42; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20; Acts 10:5; 11:13. Simon as spokesman: Mt

Notes to Concl., pp. 122–23 | 163 15:15; 16:16, 22; 17:26; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35; Mk 8:29, 32; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 13:6–9, 36–37; Acts 1:15. Simon as the one who knew Jesus best: Mt 17:4; Mk 9:5; Lk 5:8; 9:20, 33; Jn 6:68. 77. James and John as Sons of Thunder: Mk 3:17. John as Beloved Disciple: Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20. 78. James and John and their mother: Mt 20:20; cf. Mk 10:35. Lessons in humility: Mt 6:2; 11:29–30; 18:1–4; 23:10–12; Mk 9:33–37; Lk 9:46–50; 14:7–11; 22:24–30; Jn 3:22–36; 5:41; 8:50; 13:1–17. Ultimate rewards: Mt 6:33; 10:16–25, 40–42; 25:21; Mk 10:28–30; Lk 12:37; Jn 17:12. Plenty of persecutions: Mt 5:11– 12; 10:16–23, 38–39; 16:24–28; 19:28; 24:9; Mk 8:34–35; 13:13; Lk 9:23–27; 21:17; Jn 15:18–20; 17:14. Martyrdom of James: Acts 12:2. 79. Resentment at ambition of James and John and their mother: Mt 20:24; Mk 10:41. Call to forgiveness: Mt 18:21–35; cf. Mt 6:12–15; 18:35; Mk 11:25; Lk 6:36–7; 11:4; 14:9–10; 17:3–4; Jn 20:23. Being merciful and reconciled before sacrificing: Mt 5:22–24; 6:14–15; 7:1–3; 9:13; 12:7; 18:35; 23:2–3; Mk 11:25; 12:22; Lk 15; Acts 7:26; Rom 14:10. 80. Friendship with God: Mt 6:24; 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27; 11:42; 16:13; Jn 14:21, 23; 15:9; 16:27; 17:6, 23–26. Friendship with Jesus: Mt 10:37–39; 11:19; 26:50; Lk 5:20; 7:34; 12:4, 14; Jn 3:29; 8:42; 11:3, 5, 11, 36; 13:1, 23, 34; 14:15, 21, 23; 15:9–15; 16:27; 17:26; 18:9; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:15–17, 20. Friendship among the disciples: Lk 6:42; Jn 13:14, 34–35; 15:12–17. Friendship with neighbors: Mt 5:43–44; 7:3–5; 19:19; 22:39; Mk 5:19; 12:31; Lk 6:41–42; 10:25–37. Friendship with inferiors, the poor, strangers, enemies, and persecutors: Mt 5:43–47; 23:10– 11; 25:31–46; Lk 6:27–36; 10:25–37; 14:12–13; 16:1–9, 19–31; 18:9–14. Citizens of the one kingdom: Mt 5:3, 10, 19; 6:33; 7:21; 11:11; 13:38, 43; 16:19; 18:1–4; 19:14; 21:31; 25:34; 26:29; Jn 3:3–5; 18:36; Rom 14:17; Eph 2:19. Worshippers in the Temple: Mt 16:18; 21:14–15; Lk 22:53; 24:53; Jn 2:19–21; 7:14, 28; 8:2; 10:23; 18:20; 1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 5:1; Eph 2:21–22. Sheep of one flock: Mt 18:12; 25:32– 33; 26:31; Jn 10:1–18; 21:16–17; Heb 13:20; cf. 1 Pt 2:25; 5:1–11. Fish in a net: Mt 4:19; Lk 5:2–11; 13:47; Jn 21:6–8. Branches of one vine: Jn 15:1–11; cf. Mt 20:1– 16; 21:28–32, 33–43; Lk 6:43–45. Workers in a vineyard: Mt 20:1–16; 21:28–32, 33–44; cf. 1 Cor 3:5–9. Builders and stones of a building: Mt 7:24–25; 16:18; 21:42, 44; Lk 6:46–49; 14:28–30; cf. 1 Cor 3:9–15; 14:3, 12, 26; 2 Cor 5:1; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; Eph 2:20; 4:12–29; Heb 6:1; 11:10. Diners at the same table/banquet: Mt 22:1–14; 25:1–13; 26:7, 29; Lk 5:29–32; 7:36–50; 17:7–10; 22:1, 27, 30; 24:30; Jn 13:4, 12. Passengers in the one boat: Mt 8:23–27; 13:2; 14:22–33; Jn 6:16–24; 21:3–8. Blessedness is being meek, forgiving, generous, and peace-loving, eschewing anger and hate, violence, and recrimination: Mt 5:4–9, 20–21, 38– 39; 6:38; 7:12; 26:52; Lk 6:27–36. 81. Disciples are Jesus’ friends and brothers: Mt 12:50; 26:50; 28:10; Lk 22:32; Jn 3:29; 13:34–35; 15:9–17; 17:23, 26; 20:7; 1 Jn 2:5; 2:10; 3:10–23; 4:7–21; 5:1–3. John lay against Jesus’ breast: Jn 13:23. Love one another: Jn 13:34; 15:9– 10. Prayer for unity: Jn 10:16; 13:14, 35; 15:1–7; 16:33; 17:11–24; cf. Mt 12:25; 18:15–20; 23:8; Mk 3:25. Blessing with peace: Jn 14:27; 16:33. Washing the feet

164 | Notes to Concl., p. 123 and instituting the Eucharist: Mt 26:26–29; Mk 14:22–25; Lk 22:17–19; 24:30– 36; Jn 6:25–69; 13:1–23; 20:19, 26; 21:13; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23–26. 82. Mary entrusted to John: Jn 19:26–27. After the Resurrection: Mt 28:10; Lk 22:32; 24:36; Jn 20:17, 19, 21, 26; 21:15–19. 83. God is love: Jn 3:16, 35; 5:20; 14:21, 23; 16:27; 17:23–26; 1 Jn 2:5, 15; 3:1; 4:7–21. Jesus is friendship: Jn 10:17; 11:3, 5, 36; 13:1, 34–35; 14:21, 23, 31; 15:9– 10; 16:27; 17:23. The Holy Spirit is charity: Jn 14:15–17; 20:22; 1 Jn 3:24; 4:1–16. Demonstrating love: 1 Jn 2:7–11; 4:7–11; 2 Jn 1:4–6. Christians call each other brethren, friends, carissimi: Acts 15:25; 21:17, 20; Rom 12:10; 16:16; 1 Cor 9:5; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 4:9; 5:26; Heb 13:1; 1 Pt 1:22; 2:11, 17; 4:12; 5:9, 14; 2 Pt 1:7; 3:14; 1 Jn 2:7; 3:2; 4:7. 84. They stayed together in Jerusalem, before and after Pentecost and were “of one accord”: Acts 1:2, 4, 6, 12–14, 26; 2:1, 37, 42–47; 4:5; 5:18; 8:1. 85. 2 Jn 1:3; 2 Cor 13:13.

INDEX

Bishops. See Episcopacy Body of Christ. See Catholic Church; Eucharist Bonaventure, Saint, 31–32, 36, 97

Adoration. See Prayer Albert, Saint, 29–32, 36, 97–98, 118, 141–42n38, 143n56, 153n20, 154n43, 155n3, 155n9 Apostles, 1–2, 7, 9–17, 19–21, 23–24, 34–36, 37f3–1, 38–39, 41–43, 46, 48, 57, 63, 75, 81–83, 96–97, 100–2, 105, 110, 114, 117, 121–23, 131n1 (of ch. 1), 132n3, 133n9, 134n20, 134n24, 136n39, 136n52, 137n57, 138n72, 147n36, 150n68, 162n69; apostolic succession, 21, 24. See also Disciples; Peter, Saint; Tradition Aquinas, Saint Thomas, 30–36, 69, 80–82, 85–86, 95, 97, 115–18, 142n47, 142–43n51, 143n56, 147n36, 161n59 Aristotle, 70, 80–81, 114 Augustine, Saint, 26, 29, 39, 80–81, 115 Authority. See Service, authority as Baptism, 19, 24, 29, 39, 45, 136n51, 148n42 Basil, Saint, 111–14, 118 Benedict XVI, Pope, 39, 44, 50, 59, 93, 145n28 Bible, quotations from: Neh, 102; Is, 61; Jer, 161n59; Ez, 115–16; Mt, 7– 8, 12, 38, 79, 84, 116; Mk, 100; Lk, 12–13, 62, 69, 154n44; Jn, 1, 3, 51, 83, 154n44, 161n59; Acts, 9, 10, 13, 16–17, 75, 102, 154–55n44, 164n84; Rom, 19; 1 Cor, 14, 18, 161n59; Gal, 14, 16, 117; Eph, 18– 20; Phil, 38, 72;1 Tm, 19, 120; 2 Tm, 19, 105, 118, 120; Ti, 120, 134n22, 161n59; Heb, 75; Jas, 161n46; Rv, 51. See also Scripture

Catholic Church, 2–3, 8–10, 13–21, 23–32, 34, 38–39, 41–54, 59, 62–64, 67–68, 70–72, 74, 76, 78–79, 81, 93– 96, 100, 103–5, 107–14, 116, 118– 19, 122; as body of Christ, 1, 8, 18– 20, 23, 31, 36, 39, 43–45, 95, 118, 147n38; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 44, 147n38 Chesterton, G. K., 119 Christus Dominus (Vatican II), 46–48, 162n60 Chrysostom, Saint John, 26–28, 35– 36, 140n19, 148n40 Cicero, 81 Code of Canon Law, 42, 46 Collegiality, 3, 10, 34, 38, 41–43, 46–47, 49, 54, 57, 71, 73, 94, 145n28, 149n62; college of bishops, 3, 26, 41–43, 46, 51, 53–54, 59, 121, 147n38 Commission, Great, 12, 39, 123 Communion, 3–4, 8–9, 14–15, 20–21, 23–24, 26–29, 35, 38, 41–47, 49, 51– 54, 63, 73–74, 77–80, 82, 86, 94, 101–2, 104, 107–11, 115, 118, 121, 123, 145n26, 146n33, 146n34, 146n38, 146n40, 146n42, 148n47, 157n7, 157n8, 158n9; Communio, 3–4, 7–10, 14–15, 18, 20, 25, 27, 31, 34–35, 38–39, 43–45, 49, 57, 77, 105, 108, 110–11; Communionis notio (CDF), 44, 147n38, 148n40. See also Saints; Trinity Contemplation. See Prayer Council of Jerusalem, 14–18, 110

165

166 |

INDEX

Council of Nicaea, 3, 25, 41, 112 Council of Trent, 3, 119 Culture, 65, 68, 73, 92–94, 104, 107, 110; cultural polarization, 3, 70, 80, 90, 108; ecclesial, 32; Jewish, 7, 153n34 Cyprian, Saint, 140n9 Cyril of Alexandria, Saint, 28–29, 35, 36, 141n28 Dalí, Salvador, 39–41 Despair. See Morale, low Directory for Bishops (2004), 42, 44, 46 Disciples, 1–2, 8, 10, 12–15, 32, 63, 81, 83–84, 132n3, 154–55n44, 161n59, 162n60, 162n74; friendship and, 163n80, 163n81 Discouragement. See Morale, low Division, 8–9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 28, 63, 92, 132n7, 137n59; disunity, 2, 27, 112 Dominic, Saint, 60, 89, 95, 97 Dominican Order, 4, 7, 29–31, 58, 62, 64, 66–67, 89–90, 94–95, 97–99, 141n36, 155nn2–3 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 78 Ecclesia in America (Saint John Paul II), 94, 104, 108, 157n7, 157n8, 157–58n9 Episcopacy, 9, 27, 30, 32, 34–35, 39, 41, 50, 80, 112, 114; bishop, 3, 4, 9–10, 13–15, 17, 19, 21, 23–37, 39, 41–54, 59–60, 62–64, 66–76, 78–80, 82, 85–86, 89, 92, 94–100, 104–5, 107, 109–15, 117–21, 141n36, 142n51, 148n47, 158n9, 161–62n60; body of bishops, 145n26; episcopal conferences, 46, 49, 54, 109, 158n9; role of the, 13–14, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 41, 45–46, 53–54, 74, 117–19; vicars, 34. See also Collegiality; Ordination; Priesthood Eternal life, 1, 34–35, 131n1. See also Heaven

Eucharist, 1, 8, 9, 11–13, 18, 23–25, 28–29, 31, 36, 39, 45–46, 51, 54, 57– 60, 62–63, 71, 75, 83–84, 101–2, 109, 118, 123, 132–33n9, 136n51, 139n87, 147n36, 147n38, 154n40, 157n8, 164n81. See also Catholic Church Evangelii gaudium (Pope Francis), 44, 94, 99–100, 104, 107–8, 120, 154n44, 156n24, 157n7, 157n8, 157n9 Evangelization, 45, 93–94, 104, 107, 109, 113, 120, 133n9, 157n9, 157n29. See also Gospel; Mission Faithful, The, 9, 14–15, 18, 23–24, 26– 29, 32, 34, 39, 42–43, 46, 48, 51, 53– 54, 74–75, 96, 111, 114, 138n87, 148n40, 148n47, 162n60. See also Laity Father, God the, 1–2, 7, 19, 25, 38, 41, 44, 59, 63, 68, 75, 83–84, 95, 113, 122–23, 131n1, 133n12, 140n9, 147n38; will of, 84, 142n47, 154n40 Fellowship. See Koinonia (κοινωνίᾳ) Francis, Pope, 38–39, 43, 47–54, 63, 74, 79, 86, 94, 99–101, 103, 120, 146n33, 149n67, 150n68, 150n72; Fratelli Tutti, 44, 48, 146n33. See also Evangelii gaudium Fraternity, 2–4, 7–10, 12, 19–21, 23–36, 38, 43, 44, 47, 54, 57, 78–79, 81–82, 85–86, 94, 105, 108–11, 121, 123, 131n2–132n3, 132n7, 146n33, 157n7, 157n8, 158n9, 163n81; fraternal charity, 35–36, 43, 46, 116– 18; fraternal correction, 4, 115–18 Friendship, 3–4, 12, 44, 73–87, 107, 111–15, 117, 120–23, 131n2, 155n9, 158n12, 160n34, 163n80, 164n83. See also Disciples Frodo Baggins (Lord of the Rings), 86– 87 Fun, 69, 81–86, 120

Index | 167 Gospel, 14, 49–50, 53–54, 68, 86, 92– 94, 96, 98–99, 104–5, 107, 114, 117, 119; all four, 10–11, 21, 41, 46, 72, 75, 84, 107, 131n1 (of ch. 1), 148n47, 154n44, 161–62n60; culture and, 93, 104; of John, 1, 15, 131n1; physical book of, 37–38; synoptic Gospels, 84, 134n24. See also Bible, quotations of; Scripture Grace, 2, 12–14, 19, 25, 28–29, 32–35, 39, 41, 44, 51, 67, 72, 76, 80, 82, 86, 95, 100, 104, 110, 123, 141n38, 147n36 Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint, 26, 111– 14, 159n25, 159n29, 160n34 Gregory of Nyssa, Saint, 111–12 Gregory the Great, Saint, 29, 118, 161n56 Heaven, 45, 57, 71, 85, 93, 97; ascension into, 11; saints in, 45 Hell, 8, 33, 71, 78, 93, 97 Holy Orders, 30–31. See also Ordination Holy Spirit, 8, 13, 18–20, 25, 28, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48–49, 51–54, 96, 100, 113, 123, 131n1, 133n11, 136n51, 147n36, 147n38, 148n40, 150n68, 154n44, 164n83; and Pentecost, 8, 11, 13, 122, 136n40, 164n84; of Truth, 45, 51 Humility, 18, 31, 33–34, 36, 52, 77, 79, 98, 118, 122, 163n78 Iconography, 21, 58, 60, 67, 95 Ignatius of Antioch, Saint, 23, 36, 62, 81 Imagination, 48, 59, 66–70, 99, 119– 20 Incarnation, 24, 29, 38, 57, 98, 104 International Theological Commission, 145n26, 149n63 Irenaeus of Lyons, Saint, 24, 36

Jesus Christ: actions and teachings of, 1–3, 7–8, 11, 15, 20, 62, 70–71, 79, 96, 107, 116–17, 121–23, 131n1, 153n34, 154n44, 161n59; coming of, 69; in Christ (Jesus), 108, 133n12, 147n38; Good Shepherd, 75; the Incarnate Word of God, 38, 57, 60–61, 68, 98–99, 104; “Jesus, remember me,” 28; name of, 18, 38; social life of, 82–86, 121; as Truth, 51, 90, 156n21; unborn, 60. See also Eucharist; Friendship; Passion, The; Redemption John Paul II, Pope Saint, 44, 46, 92– 94, 107, 156n12; Apostolos suos, 46. See also Ecclesia in America John the Baptist, 27, 84 Joy, 68–69, 154–55n44; of Christ, 1, 2, 11, 101, 131n1; of Christians, 17, 85–86, 120; of John the Baptist, 60, 154n44. See also Evangelii gaudium Justin Martyr, Saint, 24, 36 Koinonia (κοινωνίᾳ), 8–9, 14–15, 24, 27–28, 39, 43–44, 132n8–9. See also Communion Laity, 23, 32, 48, 52, 54, 66, 74, 86. See also Faithful, The Leo XIII, Pope, 147n36 Lewis, C. S., 57 Lumen gentium (Vatican II), 39, 41– 43, 45–47, 70, 108, 145n20, 145n26, 147n36, 147–48n40, 148n42, 148n47, 149n62, 161n60 Magisterium, 16, 36, 42, 44, 46, 107–8, 145n26; of Pope Francis, 47–49, 54 Manoussakis, John, 114, 159n25 Marks of the Church, 25, 49, 96, 105 Mary, Blessed Virgin, 59–62, 71, 154n44, 164n82

168 |

INDEX

Mary and Martha, 83, 142–43n51, 153n34 Mary Magdalene, Saint, 82 Memory, 59, 66, 69–72, 119–20; of Christ, 62, 63, 70. See also Imagination Mercy, 34, 71, 95, 98, 104, 163n79; forgiveness, 18, 24, 71, 84, 97, 123, 154n39, 163n79, 163n80; preaching as spiritual work of mercy, 97–101, 105, 117, 119 Ministry, 19, 25, 31, 34, 41, 43, 99, 101, 104–5; Jesus’, 83–84, 153n34, 154n44 Mission, 2, 11, 13, 16, 34, 39, 41–43, 46, 48–50, 53–54, 75, 77, 80, 89–90, 96, 104, 109, 119; missionary, 16, 45, 89, 94, 96 Morale, low, 63, 68, 70–71, 77, 83, 86, 95 Morality, 4, 18, 27, 65, 90–91, 93, 99, 101, 108, 114–15, 139n87, 148n47, 156n12, 162n60 Name of the Rose, The (Umberto Eco), 80, 82 New evangelization. See Evangelization Newman, Saint John Henry, 89, 100–2, 105 Order of Preachers. See Dominican Order Ordination, 21, 24, 29–30, 32–33, 36, 42, 62, 74, 85, 114, 118, 136n41, 152n3 Origen of Alexandria, 25 Orthodoxy, 25, 111–14 Papacy, 15, 26, 29, 42, 46, 47–48, 53, 96, 145n26, 145n28, 147n38, 148n42, 158n9. See also Benedict XVI, Pope; Francis, Pope; John Paul II, Pope Saint; Paul VI, Pope Saint; Peter, Saint

Passion, The, 1, 8, 11, 38, 57, 83, 104, 131n1, 132n9, 135n35 Paul the Apostle, Saint, 8, 10, 13–21, 34, 37f3–1, 38, 54, 62, 72, 75, 102, 104–5, 110, 117–18, 120, 132n7, 133n12, 134n24, 137n58, 137n59, 155n44, 161n59 Paul VI, Pope Saint, 37–38, 48, 54, 93; Apostolica sollicitudo, 48; Evangelii nuntiandi, 93, 104 Peace: ecclesial, 17, 27, 123, 131n1; of God, 1, 15, 18, 34, 72, 164n81; peacemaking, 11, 109, 115, 157n8 Peanuts (Charles Schulz), 78 Persecution, 1, 2, 11, 13, 45, 67, 71, 131n1, 155n44, 163n78, 163n80 Penance, 45, 107 Penitence, 98, 100, 102, 105 Peter, Saint, 7, 10, 12–18, 20–21, 37f3– 1, 38, 41, 43, 46, 54, 59, 82, 96, 109, 121–23, 131n1 (of ch. 1), 136n54, 137n58, 137n59, 162–63n76 Poor, The, 17, 45, 58, 64, 65, 109, 133n9, 157n8, 163n80 Prayer, 1–2, 4, 9, 11–14, 20–21, 28, 36, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 57–59, 64–66, 70–72, 75, 84, 97–99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109–10, 120, 121, 131n1, 136n37, 136n51, 147n36, 154n39, 158n9, 163n81; adoration, 51, 57– 60, 63–64, 66, 71, 120; contemplation, 26, 35, 57–59, 62, 69–72, 90, 95, 114, 118–19, 142–43n51, 155n3 Preaching, 4, 10–11, 14, 20, 24, 26–27, 30, 35, 46, 66–68, 84, 89–105, 110, 118–22, 134n22, 136n52, 140n19, 142n51, 148n47, 151–52n5, 154n39, 157n29, 161n60, 162n75. See also Mercy; Truth Priesthood, 4, 9, 15, 25, 27, 30–33, 42, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 63, 71, 73–76, 94, 114, 118, 134n20, 143n51, 157n8, 160n36; communion with bishops and one another, 4, 66,

Index | 169 78, 109, 158n9; high priesthood, 59, 69, 75, 134n20; high-priestly prayer of Jesus, 1, 4 Ratzinger, Joseph. See Benedict XVI, Pope Redemption, 2, 24, 29, 57, 95, 98 Roe v. Wade, 107–10 Sacrament, 8, 13, 20, 24, 30, 32, 34–35, 38–41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53–54, 60, 62, 96, 108–10, 157n8; church as sacrament, 38–41, 43, 45, 51, 53–54, 108; sacramental, 8, 26, 30, 35, 39, 41, 118, 144n12 Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II), 38–39 Saints, 20, 45–47, 54, 85, 97, 157n8; families of, 111, 114, 158n10; in glory, 58; who fail, 70–71 Second Vatican Council. See Vatican Council II Service, authority as, 1, 11–12, 51, 131n1, 135n37, 157n29 Scripture, 43, 57, 70, 95, 101, 107, 111, 115, 118, 143n51, 161n59; Bible, 10, 77; as Word of God, 51, 95, 103, 119–20, 134n22. See also Bible, quotations from Shylock (Merchant of Venice), 74 Sirilla, Michael, 34–35, 141–42n38 Spirit. See Holy Spirit Superheroes, 73, 77, 79 Synod, 4, 24–25, 27, 29, 43–44, 46, 48– 54, 107, 149n63, 150n68; synodal, 39, 43, 48–50, 52–53, 66, 71, 94; synodality, 4, 34, 37–53, 57, 74, 96 Testament, New, 2, 8–9, 14, 16, 57, 62, 75, 83, 117, 132n7, 134n24

Testament, Old, 9 Tradition, 35–36, 49, 53–54, 57–58, 60, 70–71, 85, 91, 101, 105, 107, 110, 115, 150n72; apostolic, 8, 23–25, 43, 46, 54, 96; ascetical, 71–72; sacred, 95–96 Trinity, 2, 8, 15, 18, 28, 31, 38–39, 44, 46, 54, 79, 108, 111, 133n13 Truth, 1–2, 89–92, 110, 116–18, 131n1, 135n37, 147n36, 155n9; bishops’ charism to preach and teach, 24, 36, 51, 68, 98–99, 100–102, 104, 110, 119, 148n47; indifference to, 93; and love, 12, 19, 21, 31, 35, 77; and synod, 50 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 3, 108 United States of America, 3, 40f3–2, 67, 89, 93, 107–9 Unity, 1–3, 8, 12–15, 18–20, 23, 25–29, 35, 39, 42–43, 45, 48, 62, 66, 81, 96, 110, 112, 123, 136n37, 140n9, 147n36, 147n38, 148n42, 157n8, 163n81 Vatican Council II, 3, 10, 32, 36–54, 57, 59, 74, 76, 93, 119. See also Christus Dominus; Lumen gentium; Sacrosanctum concilium Vianney, Saint Jean, 99–101, 104 Virtue, 21, 25, 27, 33, 71, 81–82, 99, 114, 117; virtuous, 34, 36, 85, 114, 118, 120 Von Balthasar, Hans Urs, 50 War, 63, 65, 109; prophecy of cessation of, 61; just war, 115

A L S O F R O M C UA P R E S S

Renewing Our Hope: Essays for the New Evangelization by Robert Barron. Foreword by Archbishop Christophe Pierre Pope Francis and The Search for God in América: The Significance of His Early Visits to the Americas Edited by Maria Clara Bingemer and Peter J. Casarella. Foreword by Archbishop Christophe Pierre The Pope: His Mission and His Task by Gerhard Cardinal Müller. Translated by Brian McNeil A Godly Humanism: Clarifying the Hope that Lies Within by Francis Cardinal George, OMI A Service of Love: Papal Primacy, the Eucharist, and Church Unity by Paul McPartlan The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles by Michael Sirilla. Foreword by J. Augustine Di Noia The Priesthood, Mystery of Faith: Priestly Ministry in the Magisterium of John Paul II by Nilson Leal de Sá. Foreword by Cardinal José Saraiva Martins Church and Communion: An Introduction to Ecumenical Theology, second edition by Philip Goyret. Edited by Joseph Thomas Ukrainian Bishop, American Church: Constantine Bohachevsky and the Ukrainian Catholic Church by Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak