The apostolic church vs. missionary disciples

[VeryTas]

As a former Congregationalist I am sensitive to echoes of their error when they show up in the Catholic Church. The apostles were those commissioned by Christ to bring his gospel reliably to the world. and their calling was passed on to the bishops. But a misapplication of that apostolic calling to laity has become too common. Vatican II did encourage lay people to give a witness of their faith in their ordinary lives in the world, but it is not necessary to call this their "apostolate" or to call their Christian discipleship "missionary".

Consider how Paul introduced himself to the church in Rome: "Through [Christ] we [that is, I and other apostles] have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles, among whom are you also, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ..." (Romans 1:5-6). It belongs to us to respond to the gospel with faith, and our calling is not to imitate apostles, but to "belong to Jesus Christ" in another way, most often by forming faithful, fruitful families.

This is why I question the automatic application of things said to the Twelve, to Christians in general. Some of these things apply to us and others do not. It is why I deny that Paul (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) includes us in his "ministry of reconciliation", except as recipients of that reconciliation. See my topic "We and you in Paul" (July 14) in the Lyceum.

[Tired]

what are some of those things? I was not aware of any - in the Catholic Church - to which you might be referring.

[VeryTas]

what are some of those things? I was not aware of any - in the Catholic Church - to which you might be referring.

Possibly I was still thinking of the many cases in which Protestants downplay the apostles' privileges. However, the prime example I hear from Catholic homilists and lay people is their treatment of Matthew 28:19-20a: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Under the banner of the new evangelization I hear this being used to now enlist us lay people, indiscriminately, in what remains essentially the calling of bishops. As if this very passage is among the "all that I have commanded you." Even the NAB's footnote restricts what is "commanded" here to the moral law.

A similar tendency (in my estimation) shows up when we are repeatedly told, without nuance, of our identity as "priests, prophets, and kings."

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I don't think that evangelization is a calling restricted to bishops. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ ... iandi.html

[Tired]

I do think the nuance is important to explain. But we are all called in some way to be priests, prophets, and kings. To me, the key is to remain humble in that mission - but to embrace that mission much the same (which I often fail to do). I *think* my 'job' is to point people to Christ. I can answer, from an apologetics standpoint, a lot (not all), but that is just to offer a defense (not an offense).

[VeryTas]

I don't think that evangelization is a calling restricted to bishops. https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/ ... iandi.html

In paragraph 67 of that exhortation Paul VI quotes from Vatican II:

Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature (cf. Mk. 16:15) primarily and immediately concerns the bishops with Peter and under Peter.

Perhaps what I am saying is that lately, in practice, the rest of us have been addressed in words and tones as if this evangelization should also concern us primarily and immediately, as if it should be our conscious priority as disciples. Or am I imagining this?

[peregrinator]

I think if bishops are not doing their job of evangelizing then it will naturally fall to priests and laypeople to take up the task.

[gherkin]

In paragraph 67 of that exhortation Paul VI quotes from Vatican II:

Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature (cf. Mk. 16:15) primarily and immediately concerns the bishops with Peter and under Peter.

Perhaps what I am saying is that lately, in practice, the rest of us have been addressed in words and tones as if this evangelization should also concern us primarily and immediately, as if it should be our conscious priority as disciples. Or am I imagining this?

It seems like maybe you're interpreting the "primarily and immediately" somewhat idiosyncratically. I say this because it looks like you infer from that bit that the mandate being given primarily and immediately to X means that that mandate should be X's conscious priority. I don't think that inference holds. One could be the primary and immediate recipient of many mandates, none of which are one's first priority: I am, for example, the primary and immediate holder of the mandate to take care of my pigs. But taking care of my pigs is very far from my first priority. Rather, the primacy and immediacy of that mandate to me means that ultimately the responsibility is mine, but of course I can delegate that responsibility, and others may indirectly share in it. For example, if I were to become ill, my wife or my children would have a mediate obligation to care for the pigs, even if I'm too ill to explicitly delegate the task to them.

I think lay evangelization is kind of like that--our calling to evangelize is mediate, and we are not the primary recipients of that mandate. When we evangelize, it is fundamentally under the authority of our bishop. Paragraph 38 of Ad Gentes (to which that quotation you mention is ultimately linked) gives a decent account of this. But whether our calling to evangelize is mediate or immediate, or whether we are the primary or subsidiary recipients of that mandate, I don't think it follows that it needs to be our first priority.

[VeryTas]

Gherkin, I accept your clarifications. Then Peregrinator might want to indicate whether priests and laypeople must make this job as much a priority as bishops were supposed to, when he says:

I think if bishops are not doing their job of evangelizing then it will naturally fall to priests and laypeople to take up the task.

My position is that laypeople can take the opportunity to intensify the ways they already do unconsciously evangelize, namely, by fidelity to Catholic morality and to their calling in relation to marriage, family life, and work in the world. Anything more than that would be a novelty that we might call Catholic guilt 2.0.

[peregrinator]

I agree that laypeople should primarily evangelize by living good and holy lives. I don't think the modern-day lay evangelist or apologist is ideal. But when those above them in the hierarchy are unwilling or unable to defend the Faith, then it will fall to laymen and -women.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Defending the faith is different from being a missionary disciple. The lay faithful go places and know people that the clergy will never know. Being a missionary disciple isn't about YouTube or X. It's about helping the people you encounter find Jesus.

[VeryTas]

I agree that laypeople should primarily evangelize by living good and holy lives. I don't think the modern-day lay evangelist or apologist is ideal. But when those above them in the hierarchy are unwilling or unable to defend the Faith, then it will fall to laymen and -women.

It is somewhat like the case of a husband and father being unable or unwilling to do his part. The wife and children often do pick up the slack. But when bishops are enlisting laypeople for this "new" evangelization, are they admitting that they are unwilling to do the job? Or are they admitting that they are unable? And if unable, in what way -- burned out or cowardly? If they would simply remind their people of, for instance, the duty to be fruitful (vs. contraception), it would go a long way toward evangelizing the culture. (Well, in that example are the bishops cowardly because they know their people will be cowardly?)

[Doom]

Bishops doing all the evangelizing is very far from the historical norm. When the Spanish sent missionaries into the New World in the 15th and 16th centuries and converted Central and South America to Catholicism, very few of those sent were bishops, and the ones who were sent were only sent so that they could ordain native priests and bishops, they certainly didn't do all the preaching.

[swamp_trudger]

I've been listening to an exegesis podcast where, for the first time I've been hearing that some, if not many of Jesus' instructions were meant for the Apostles and not as general statements to all believers. As someone prone to overthinking and scrupulosity , it gives me some relief to hear that. I can see that we as lay people are meant to defend our faith when needed, to not deny Christ, and to give a good example by our lives. But evangelizing is the primary duty of the bishops, then the priests, and perhaps if one feels a special call, but not necessarily for the everyday Catholic.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

May I ask which podcast this is?

[swamp_trudger]

It's Logical Bible Study:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d ... 1487384040

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Thank you.