Note: The following homily was preached on the feast of St. Timothy (EF), on January 24, 2025, at the Church of the Holy Innocents, New York City.
Let me begin this evening by unraveling a bit of our often-played game of “musical calendars.” In the liturgical calendar of the 1962 Missal, today is the feast of St. Timothy, the day before the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul; in the reformed calendar,, January 26 is the memorial of Saints Timothy and Titus, the day after the feast of Paul’s conversion. Oddly, the calendar bequeathed by the Council of Trent had no feast for Titus, who had to wait until the pontificate of Pope Pius IX in 1854 to be remembered at the altar.
Having Timothy and Titus share a common celebration–and following that of Paul’s conversion–makes perfect sense as they were St. Paul’s dear sons in the priesthood and episcopate, to whom he directed the so-called Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, letters dealing precisely with Church order and Christian living.
In those two sons of Paul, we see lived out the Church’s doctrine of apostolic succession. Of course, the primatial example of that is found in the very first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Prince of the Apostles calls for a replacement for the Traitor. And so, we read:
And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (1:23-26)
And so, I thought it might be worthwhile to use this occasion to review the doctrine of apostolic succession. Listen to a few paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in this regard:
The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:
– she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles,” The witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
– with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, The “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
– she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”: (CCC, 857)
At which point, the Catechism quotes Preface I for the Apostles in the current edition of the Missale Romanum:
For you, eternal Shepherd, do not desert your flock, but through the blessed Apostles watch over it and protect it always, so that it may be governed by those you have appointed shepherds to lead it in the name of your Son.
Then the text picks up here:
Jesus is the Father’s Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he “called to him those whom he desired; …. and he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach.”From then on, they would also be his “emissaries” (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own mission: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” The apostles’ ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: “he who receives you receives me.”
Jesus unites them to the mission he received from the Father. As “the Son can do nothing of his own accord,” but receives everything from the Father who sent him, so those whom Jesus sends can do nothing apart from him, from whom they received both the mandate for their mission and the power to carry it out. Christ’s apostles knew that they were called by God as “ministers of a new covenant,” “servants of God,” “ambassadors for Christ,” “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore, . . . the apostles took care to appoint successors.”
“In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.”
“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” (CCC 858-862)
The Church holds that apostolic succession is so essential that no Christian body can be properly called a “Church” without it. Which is why the documents of Vatican II (and every official document since) refrain from calling a “Church” any community that lacks the charism of succession, referring to them merely as “ecclesial communities.” In reality, that effectively means that only the Eastern Orthodox can be regarded as real Churches.
However, we need to ask in what does apostolic succession consist? It is transmitted, firstly, by the liturgical act of the laying on of hands by one already possessing the ministry of bishop and thus passing it on to a “successor.” The “content” of succession, we could say, includes a life of worship stemming from the sacraments, grounded in apostolic teaching and way of life.
So, yes, what we call “tactile” succession, that is, the laying on of hands from generation to generation is critical, equally so is succession in faith and morals. The Anglican Communion has always boasted of apostolic succession. However, decades before Pope Leo XIII, in his 1896 encyclical Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican Orders “absolutely null and utterly void,” Cardinal Newman had come to the same conclusion. You see, aside from Edward VI’s tinkering with the rite of ordination, Anglicans had, step by step, moved away from the full Deposit of Faith.
Many of you, I am sure, have heard of the great literary figure and convert to the Catholic Faith, Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, perhaps most famous for his 1907 dystopian science fiction novel, Lord of the World. Interestingly, Robert was the son of the would-be Archbishop of Canterbury. As the young man—a by-then Anglican cleric—was beginning to think seriously about the claims of Anglicanism, he asked his father one day how he saw himself in the line of apostolic succession. Riffing on the Greek origin of the word “apostle” (as you saw the Catechism do), the elder gentleman declared, “I was sent by Archbishop Archibald Campbell Tait, who was sent by Archbishop So-and-So, who was sent by. . . all the way back to Archbishop Matthew Parker.”
At which point, the junior cleric and son queried, “And who sent Matthew Parker?” I imagine an awkward silence ensued because the answer to that cheeky question would have had to been “Henry VIII.” Not very apostolic.
It is one of the sad ironies of our time that, despite all our efforts and prayers, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion have never been farther apart. In Newman’s time, there was not a single moral precept or teaching of the Catholic Church that was not held by Anglicans. Today, we inhabit two different moral universes.
At any rate, as we find ourselves headed toward the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, we must re-double our pleadings for that intention for, as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us in 2011, “Prayer is at the center of the journey to unity. We do not ‘construct’ unity,” the Pope explained. “God ‘constructs’ it, it comes from Him.”
That intuition motivated an Episcopal clergyman a century earlier to establish this Octave of prayer; that initiative caught on like wildfire, even among Catholic prelates.
That man was Lewis Thomas Wattson, who became “Father Paul” in founding the first religious community of men and women within Anglicanism, in consort with Mother Lurana, as the Society of the Atonement, right here in the Archdiocese of New York at Garrison, where they dubbed their new home “Graymoor,” to which I had the joy of making my first pilgrimage as an altar boy of nine. Father Paul presented himself to Archbishop John Farley for Catholic ordination. The Archbishop sent him to Dunwoodie, presumably for two years of study, however, within seven short months Farley conferred on him Catholic priesthood. Cardinal Dolan formally launched Father Paul’s cause for canonization in 2014.
Every pope of the modern era has had a special burden on his heart for the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox, which is likely one reason Pius IX created the feast of St. Titus, who founded the Church on the Island of Crete. That realization caused Dom Guéranger to end his reflection for that feast with this lovely prayer, which we can make our own:
Ask of Jesus, that He send us Pastors like unto thee. Pray for that Island, which thou didst convert to the true faith, but which is now buried in the darkness of infidelity and schism. Pray, too, for the Greek Church, that it may regain its ancient glory by union with the See of Peter. Hear, O Titus! thy prayers of the Pontiff, who has made thy name to be venerated in the Liturgy throughout the world, in order that He might draw down peace and mercy upon the world, by thy powerful intercession.
St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles
St. Timothy
St. Titus
Venerable Paul Wattson– pray to our Heavenly Father, in union with the Church’s Lord, “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Whatever became of Father Rutler?
Seems like he’s still wielding a pen…
His most recent entry at Imaginative Conservative is dated February 2022, and was interviewed by Dappled Things in May 2024.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/author/rev-george-w-rutler
https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/11378/fr-rutlers-peregrinating-essays
https://crisismagazine.com/author/rutler
https://ignatius.com/authors/fr-george-rutler/
I’m very skeptical about this article. The author writes:
“The Church holds that apostolic succession is so essential that no Christian body can be properly called a “Church” without it. Which is why the documents of Vatican II (and every official document since) refrain from calling a “Church” any community that lacks the charism of succession, referring to them merely as “ecclesial communities.”
But if you are familiar with the Council speeches of Vatican II, you see the terms “ecclesial communities” and “Church” used interchangeably. For example, Archbishop George Flahiff writes: “Schisms among Christians are brought about as a consequence of sin, sin in which the whole Christian people shares. Although it is not for us to put the past on trial, as Pope John XXIII said, all Christian communities or Churches are bound to acknowledge their faults…” Note “all Christian communities or Churches”. He continues later on: “…in a similar way through the division of the Churches he wants to give many…I am fully convinced that the ecumenical movement is the work of the Holy Spirit through which out of schisms, or better, out of the effort to overcome them, all the Churches profit immensely, are challenged to renewal,…”
From the earliest times until the present time, the Church has always been the “fellowship of those who believe in Christ”, that is, the “fellowship of those who have committed themselves to the person and cause of Christ and attest that cause as hope for all men and women”. Consider Mark, chapter 9: “John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us”. Perhaps one could say that John was concerned about the lack of the “charism of succession”. Jesus did not appear to be so concerned.
This distinction between church and ecclesial communities seems like a theological construct to me.
In the Germanic languages, the name “church” (Kirche) is derived from the Greek kyriake, which means “belonging to the Kyrios, the Lord,” and means the house or the community of the Lord. In the Romance languages, ecclesia, iglesia, chiesa, église, are derived from the Greek word ekklesia, which is also used in the New Testament, or the Hebrew word qahal, and means “assembly” (of God).
I’m skeptical not only about articles written by this author, but also his ecumenical prowess.
From the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (July 29, 2007), under Benedict XVI:
Full document on Vatican site.
It’s hard to argue with this. It is very good, and when I read the whole document on the Vatican website, it reads very differently than Stravinskas article or “homily”. Personally, I’m not sure how ecumenically prudent that distinction is, but that’s another question, to be argued out on another forum with ecumenically minded theologians. I’m reminded that there were all sorts of “theological opinions” (like this one) that were put forth at Vatican II by Cardinals that were rejected by the majority bishops, such as the order of the chapters in Lumen Gentium. The significance of that was tremendous. And so I wonder about how much authority we can give this text, in light of the hierarchy of truths.
In any case, I do wonder about Stravinskas’s expression “…merely as ‘ecclesial communities’. We know from Scripture that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Mt 18, 20). That’s all that seems to matter for those gathered. Yes, they don’t have the Eucharist and the benefit of all the gifts that come with a magisterium and the seven sacraments, but that doesn’t seem to bother them. And when it comes right down to it, so many of these merely “ecclesial communities” are doing so much more for people than the Catholic parishes that are instances of the so-called “authentic Church”. I know a Catholic parish nearby that has tremendous potential, lay people ready and willing to do so much, to start a bible study, support groups of various sorts, ministries of outreach, visiting schools, etc., but the pastor chooses to do everything by himself, which isn’t much, because he’s old and tired, and in his mind, it is “his Church”, not theirs. He’s precisely the kind of priest that Francis is telling us not to be, and he has no clue. All he seems to care about is sanctuary decor. So, a large number of people have left the parish and gone to the Pentecostal Church in the next town–or I should say mere “ecclesial community”–, others left for the local Anglican Church (or mere ecclesial community), and they are getting so much out of these communities. Granted they don’t have the Eucharist and Confession etc, but it doesn’t seem to bother them. They have community, fellowship, they have Christ in their midst, they have weekly bible study during the week, weekly prayer group meetings, soup kitchens for the town’s homeless, etc., etc. The place is bustling with activity during the week, unlike the Catholic parish I was referring to. Theological distinctions really don’t seem to matter to these people. I ask myself what would I rather have? A homily like Peter Stravinskas gave, which only hardens people in their sectarianism, in an us and them mentality? Or an inspiring homily by the Pentecostal minister on the face of Christ in the poor, the sick, the distressed? Stravinskas might win the argument, but he certainly does not win the people, except those tribal Catholics who think like him.
And since we are the habit of referring to these Vatican documents on the Vatican website as sources of authority, allow me to refer to these. First, Amoris Laetitia:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin –which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.”
And of course, footnote 351 says: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”
And in light of your reference to CCC 858-862: “…the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ,…”, then let’s be consistent and hear the following from the USCCB:
“We recognize the need for just immigration enforcement and affirm the government’s obligation to carry it out in a targeted, proportional, and humane way. However, non-emergency immigration enforcement in schools, places of worship, social service agencies, healthcare facilities, or other sensitive settings where people receive essential services would be contrary to the common good. With the mere rescission of the protected areas guidance, we are already witnessing reticence among immigrants to engage in daily life, including sending children to school and attending religious services. All people have a right to fulfill their duty to God without fear. Turning places of care, healing, and solace into places of fear and uncertainty for those in need, while endangering the trust between pastors, providers, educators and the people they serve, will not make our communities safer.”
It’s actually quite simple: if there is no apostolic succession, there is no Eucharist, etc. And there is no church in the strict sense of that widely-used term without a priesthood and Eucharist.
Yes, of course there is plenty of faith and good things to be found in groups that do not have apostolic succession and the Eucharist. I grew up in a Fundamentalist Bible Chapel and I attended an Evangelical Bible college. There was a lot of faith and many, many good things in both. But, we did not have the Eucharist.
“Yes, they don’t have the Eucharist and the benefit of all the gifts that come with a magisterium and the seven sacraments, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.”
Having spent a quarter century in such groups, I can partially agree. Some folks are ignorant (wildly ignorant, to be frank) about where they got the Bible, the truth about the Catholic Church, etc. But some have a sense that things are incomplete and either lash out at the Catholic Church, or are curious. Christ calls us to the fullness of truth; it’s wrong to simply think, “Well, hey, they are doing good and doing good stuff, so what’s the problem?”
My belief—based on experience, theological study, historical knowledge, and plenty of anecdotal material—is that non-Catholic Christians are either moving toward or away from the Catholic Church. There is no static position. The first should encouraged; we must do all we can to help them. The second is to be lamented, and we must do all we can to clear away impediments and give witness to the fullness of truth.
Yes, you are right, they do NOT know where the bible came from, nor the truth about the Catholic Church, etc., but once again, in their minds, who cares when they have great fellowship, prayer, and a very lively faith in the Person of Christ who is working miracles in their lives, bringing great healing, etc? The only cases I see in which they “sense” that something is incomplete is in the Catholic parishes, where very little is happening. So you have your theological answers on one level, but on another level, where the “rubber hits the road”, you get something completely different. Not abstract answers to catechetical questions, but a living community.
You are right, there is no static position, but you forgot to mention how the Catholic Church is moving as well. It’s not just the non-Catholic “ecclesial communities” that are moving and should move, while the Catholic Church can enjoy the luxury of remaining right where she is, as if there is no need to change. The Church has to move and is moving as well, at least under Pope Francis. The problem is that many Catholic journals speak so disparagingly about Francis and his efforts, undermining them, and are content to remain exactly where they are, without any need to move towards ecumenical unity.
And you are right, Christ calls us to the fullness of truth, but that call is also directed at the Catholic clergy. But more to the point, truth isn’t merely “answers to questions”. Truth is living and active; it is a Person, namely Christ, and the Catholic parish I describe does not in any way exhibit that fullness. Rather, the pastor is a “stifler” (stifles the Holy Spirit with the spirit of clericalism). I am aware that not all Catholic parishes are like that–some are tremendous and are doing great work and are truly alive. But so many are barely alive, all because of a spirit of clericalism that refuses to die.
We put way too much emphasis on Q & A, as if “Truth” is nothing but the right answers to academic questions (ie., Catholic Answers). We often confuse Evangelization with Apologetics. Truth is a Person, and that Person must increase while you and I decrease. The problem is so many of us clergy refuse to decrease and allow the gifts and talents of non-clergy to exercise the gifts the Lord has given them, because “it’s my show”.
“The only cases I see in which they “sense” that something is incomplete is in the Catholic parishes, where very little is happening.”
A broad-brushed and very unfair statement. I recall going to Mass for the first time at a very normal, regular parish and being blown away from the liturgy, the readings, the reverence, the reality of Christ present in the Eucharist. Not sure why you are so down on Catholic parishes.
” The Church has to move and is moving as well, at least under Pope Francis.”
Not sure what they means. The Church can never move away from the deposit of faith, given to her by Christ, nor can she move away from the reality of apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc.
“We put way too much emphasis on Q & A, as if “Truth” is nothing but the right answers to academic questions …”
Do “we”? I don’t.
My sense is that you have a beef with someone or something, and you bring to these discussions. Fair enough. But I think it clouds your judgments about a lot of things. Just my .02.
Pope bendict( the pope b4 francis) said and wrote the same things you dislike from the author. So I say you know nothing but caos
Speeches do not rank as official VCII documents; although a certain archbishop may have had his speech at VCII published, magisterial teaching is in the documents.
Also, the idea of apostolic succession is traced back to scripture where Jesus built his church on Peter (Cephas). The early Church fathers continued to preach the doctrine summarily noted as “Where Peter Is, there is the Church.” For more, see https://1library.net/article/the-early-church-fathers-on-apostolic-succession.zwm59e1q.
Also note the Nicene Creed, developed and adopted at the Council of Nicea, noting the Church in which we profess our faith: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Good article. Anglican and Lutherans have none of the 4 pillars of Catholicism, since they can only trace their
historical successors back to Henry VIII and Martin Luther, respectively.
The True Church (Catholic) has all 4 points of doctrine: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Eastern Orthodox, along with the SSPX, while validly retaining all 7 Sacraments, are lacking the Oneness, which is why faithful Catholics should avoid going to those parishes (unless it’s a dire emergency and you need anointing, last rites etc) until they can reenter full union with Rome.