What does it mean to be "Apostolic"?
Obviously, the plumb-line for "Apostolic" in the mind of the modern day Protestant is all over the map. "Apostolic" can just as easily be swapped for "Bible believing" in these communities, and given the doctrine of sola scriptura, we should pause to ask ourselves why the swap? If the Bible is the alleged singular authority for the Protestant, why claim Apostolicity? It really would add nothing, right? On their view, the Apostles could err, and in fact many of them probably did given that not all of them wrote a book of the Bible. Thus, why present yourselves or market your Christian brand as "Apostolic" if in your paradigm that does little to distinguish you as uniquely orthodox? I mean in the Protestant paradigm there is no apostolic succession, so who cares if you are "Apostolic"?
Ah, but we do care. They care. And, as you examine what is implied by the word and how it is used, let me offer for you a definition of "Apostolic" in the Protestant world:
Apostolic: (adj) To be like the Apostles. A Christian denomination who believes that their teaching is in conformity to the Apostles' teaching. Example: Johnny believes in Jesus only baptism, and shows Sarah where it is in the Bible. He explains that the Trinity is a made up religious term, and asks Sarah to find the word in the "Apostolic" writings. She cannot. He explains that his church is "Apostolic", and that she should leave her church that believes in "man-made traditions".
Notice that "Apostolic" does not mean you have a real relationship to the Apostles. It just means that the Apostles, the people themselves, purported a theory that if you think you more or less hold on your view, voila apostolique! It's just that simple! Of course, in no way do I mean to imply that what the Apostles taught is not important, but I'm trying to tease out the implication of the alternative to the Catholic approach. If a real relationship to the Apostles is irrelevant -- if the Apostles really did not follow the example of Christ and draft disciples themselves and pass off their ministries -- then the Apostles themselves (the ones who sit on 12 thrones of judgment in heaven -- Matthew 19:28) are irrelevant.
Moreover, on this view, Christ is the one who came to establish the true theory of Christianity. It is a family centered on a common creed, and while that last clause is not entirely false, it is an incomplete view of what Christ did. If Christ gave us the Apostles only to be the purveyors of the right propositions, then I argue that this view of Christianity comes closest to Gnosticism. In fact, well before I was Catholic or even thinking about Catholicism, I had an epiphany along these lines. If Christianity is merely a set of true propositions, and those propositions only exist in my mind, then Christianity is a subjectivist religion. Of course, the rejoinder is that the propositions are not in my mind, they are in the Bible. However, my analysis of that rejoinder was that while the source of the content was Scripture, the intellect and subsequent teacher of that content was always and everywhere me. I was reading the book and writing the lesson plans. What started to emerge, if only but as an impression, was a creeping suspicion that the Protestant paradigm supported a relativist view of truth. For our purposes, the word "Apostolic" being a solid case study for the phenomena.
How does Catholicism escape this dilemma? Isn't it true that I would still have to hold the true statements the Church teaches, and would not those propositions be similar to the propositions I held from Scripture as a Protestant? No. For starters, the entire paradigm is different, and when a Protestant levels this critique, he is thinking about Catholic dogma from within a Protestant paradigm. The Protestant has no teacher. The Church, certainly is not his teacher because if his "conscience" tells him he disagrees with the Church, he will simply find a "church" that does agree with him. Thus, he is the teacher: he reads the book and writes the lesson plan.
On the contrary, the process of "source" + "intellect/teacher" = "teaching" is modified significantly under the Catholic paradigm. On the Catholic view, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition represent the dual sources of the deposit of faith. The Teaching Office of the Church (Magisterium) possesses in a unique way the "mind of Christ" (intellect) and is empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. The subsequent "teaching" is different in species than the source of the theology. That is why the infallible teaching of the Magisterium should not be confused with the inspired source of that teaching. Some Protestants believe that Catholics hold Church teaching in the same way they hold Scripture, therefore, subjugating Scripture to the Church. That is not true. Church teaching comes from Scripture (and Sacred Tradition), and therefore is always indebted to it. So, the Catholic who affirms Church teaching affirms the Sacred deposit of faith and acknowledges the divinely protected agency of the Church.
 |
| "Now you are getting it!" |
The Catholic is not in the same position regarding doctrine as the Protestant because in the intellectual brou-ha-ha, the Church always wins. She writes the lesson plan. That means I -- as a Catholic -- can point to doctrine "x" and always say it comes "from the Church". This locates the propositions of dogma outside of me and in the Church. Subjectivism solved. Relativism averted. Silly uses of the phrase "Apostolic" prevented.
So getting back to the phrase "Apostolic"...
The problem with de-humanizing the phrase "Apostolic" is that it's referent is a group of people -- not a theology. Of course, the Apostles had a theology, but let's not imagine for a moment that the people who were the Apostles are irrelevant. God did not call Apostles to be members of an elite theology club. He called Apostles to be fathers of a family. His family. That is why the ubiquitous use of the word is so misleading. Try to find even one example in the early Church (I don't know, first 1,500 years) of someone claiming apostolicity simply on the grounds that they had copy of the New Testament. It no worky. It "no worky" means that to use "Apostolic" in a similar way today doesn't work for the same reasons. Which leads us to one of the great quandaries of modern man. You see, modern man sees the world as his opportunity to create, to innovate, because there is no meaning in the world.
Modern Man: Who am I?
He looks around his suburban apartment, checks his Twitter feed, and flips through a few pages of Bazaar.
Modern Man: Where am I?
Fidgety, he spends the evening going back and forth between FX and re-runs of "I Love Lucy"
Modern Man: What do I believe?
He passes through the door, finding his seat in section 9-A. The music lifts his soul. It was a Friday he would rather forget.
Modern Man: I am an Apostolic Christian.
What is stopping him?
