In the early hours of the resurrection appearances on the first Easter Sunday news began to be circulated that Jesus was alive and had been seen. These reports were, at first disbelieved or at least doubted by the apostles. Various reports from both women and men were dismissed by the apostles. But suddenly in the evening of that first Easter Sunday there is a change, and a declaration by the apostles that the Lord “has truly risen!” What effected this change? We will see in a moment. But first note the early reports of the resurrection and how they were largely disregarded:
- The women who go to the tomb first discover it empty (Mat 28:6; Mk 16:6; Luke 24:5; John 20:2). The Gospel of John, which is most specific indicates that Magdalene went straightway to Peter and John and speaks anxiously, not of resurrection but of a stolen body. Peter and John hurry to the tomb to investigate. But meanwhile the other women have had a vision of an angels who declare that Jesus had risen and that they should inform the apostles. They depart to do so. Here is first evidence though the risen Lord had yet to appear.
- John sees and believes – Peter and John arrive at the tomb after the women had departed. They saw only the empty tomb but it was clearly not grave robbers for the expensive grave linens were lying outstretched. Peter’s reaction is unrecorded but the text said, John saw (the grave clothes outstretched) “and believed” (Jn 20:8). Exactly what he believed is not clear. Did he believe what Mary had said? Or does the text mean he came to believe in that moment that Jesus had risen? It is not clear but let us suppose that he has come to believe that Jesus has risen. Does this mean that the Church now officially believes that Christ has risen because one of the apostles (one of the first bishops) believes it? It would seem not. That will have to wait for later in the day. Peter and John depart the tomb.
- Mary Magdalene had followed Peter and John back to the tomb and, after they leave, Jesus appears to her. Here is the first appearance of the risen Christ. Does this now mean that the Church officially believes that Jesus is risen? It would seem not. That will have to wait until later in the day. For scripture testifies that Jesus appeared elsewhere to the other women who had gone to the tomb but that when Mary Magdalene and the other women report that they had seen Jesus risen, the apostles would not believe it (Mk 16:11; Luke 24:11) Hence, though we have appearances we cannot yet say that there is any official declaration by the Church that Christ is truly risen.
- Jesus appears also to two disciples (not apostles) who are journeying to Emmaus that late afternoon. At the conclusion of that appearance they run to tell the apostles who, once again, do not believe it (Mark 16:13). So now we have had at least three appearances but no official acceptance by the Church’s leaders (the apostles) that there is any truth to these sightings.
So when does the resurrection become the official declaration of the early Church? Up till now the stories had been rejected by the apostles as either fanciful or untrue. Even the possible belief of one of the 12 (John) was not enough to cause an official declaration from the early Church. So, what causes this to change? It would seem that, after the early evening report by the disciples returning from Emmaus, Peter slipped away, perhaps for a walk, or some other purpose, and according to both Paul (1 Cor 15:5) and Luke (Lk 24:34) the risen Lord appeared to Peter privately and prior to the other apostles. Peter then reports this to the others, and the resurrection moves from being doubted, to being the official declaration of the community, the Church. The official declaration is worded thus:
The Lord has truly risen indeed, he has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34)
The resurrection is now officially declared. Notice, the world “truly” (some texts say “indeed”). It is now an officially attested fact that Jesus has risen. Neither Magdalene, nor the women in general, nor the disciples from Emmaus, nor even John, could make this declaration for the Church. It took the college of apostles in union with Peter to do this. Hence the dogma of the resurrection becomes so on very Catholic terms: The first bishops (the apostles) in union or in Council with the first Pope (Peter) make this solemn declaration of the faith.
When I wrote a similar article some years back, some argued in opposition that the Church “did not exist” at this point since Pentecost “is the birthday of the Church.” I do not accept that “the Church did not exist at this time” (For I think she did exist, but had simply not been commissioned to go forth to the nations as yet, that would wait for Pentecost. Further even if one will piously hold Pentecost as the birthday of the Church, our existence precedes our birth by at least nine months, and the Church’s existence surely also precedes her “birth”). But let us side-step the whole debate by holding saying that this exercise of the Church’s teaching authority in this event is proleptic. That is to say, what would fully be the case later, is here seen operative in an anachronistic, yet real manner (For example, Mother Mary is saved by Jesus and preserved from sin not apart from Christ’s saving act, but in a proleptic way, in anticipation of his saving grace). Thus, the apostles and their office which were fully operative after Pentecost, are here active as the result of a prevenient grace, an anticipation of the future reality of the Church to teach authoritatively out of her basic structure and the charism given to Peter and the Apostles more fully or widely at some later time. But again, I stand by my point that the Church did exist at this time and that we do not have a proleptic but in fact a proper action of the magisterium at this very point.
But did the women and the laymen’s declaration mean nothing? In fact it does. And the Lord upbraids the apostles later for being so reluctant to accept the testimony of the others (Mk 16:14). He calls them “hard of heart” for this reluctance. But he does not undermine their authority to make the official declaration, for in the very next verse he commissions the apostles to go forth and preach and teach in his name. Surely the Lord was not pleased after he had promised many times to rise from the dead that they were so slow to listen to the voices of the first witnesses. Should they not have concluded it was the third day and that the Lord had promised to rise and connected the dots? Did he have to personally appear before they would believe?
Alas, it would seem so. Jesus’ first bishops were not perfect men, far from it. But they were the leaders he had chosen, knowing their weakness. So too for today, the Church’s leaders are not perfect and may take far too long at times to make decisions or give clearer teachings or impose necessary discipline. But, in the end it is they who are nonetheless commissioned to teach officially.
This whole event also teaches us that the bishops and even the Pope are not always the first to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church. The more frequent pattern is that the Lord begins reforms and sends apparitions, not to the leaders, but among the faithful. Reform movements and messages are often received there first, and only later does the Church, through her anointed and appointed leaders, affirm or uphold certain things as worthy of belief, and set aside others as problematic.
Finally it should be noted that one of the apostles, Thomas, was absent. Even after the official declaration of the Church went forth he still refused to believe (Jn 20:25). Here too the Lord is merciful to him but in the end is clear that Thomas has fallen short. And Thomas has fallen short in a more egregious manner, for he has refused the collective and solemn declaration of the Church, not merely disbelieved the testimony of one or a few disciples. Jesus goes on to declare blessed those who accept the solemn testimony of the Church though they have not seen him with earthly eyes (Jn 20:29). That’s us!
I absolutely love your explanations. (I loved the Emmaus one from yesterday too).
“It took the college of apostles in union with Peter to do this.” Msgr. Pope’s words immediately brought to mind how Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, announced that “the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, *** in union with all the bishops of the world ***, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia.” I don’t believe that Russia herself has ever been *specifically* and thus properly consecrated – especially after reading “The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol IV” (http://www.crc-internet.org/JP1/Fatima4.htm).
Christus vincit, regnat, imperat; ab omni malo plemem suam defendat. I was a member of a visiting choral group who sang this for Blessed John Paul II in 1990 during his public audience the Wednesday after Easter
Sunday. Although he waved at everyone who sang loving tributes to him, my group was very happy to see him applaud our chant. Later that day, I found those words inscribed on the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square.
Happy Easter, Michael
I had never heard of that word ‘proleptic’ before. Neat word. This blog article offers another good argument that Peter was the first pope, one that I had never heard before, imo. Neat blog article, Monsignor.
What I thought about when I read this passage, was the apparition of the Virgin of Guadelupe. What she said was not “please build me a little house” but GO TO YOUR BISHOP and ask him to build me a “little house.”
It would probably have been a lot easier for St. Juan Diego to have put in the sweat equity than to have braved the Bishop 3 times. After all, just going and “doing it” is what Protestants do all the time if they feel “called” to start a church or something. It is also what happens when pagans choose to erect an altar to whatever god they believe might be present locally.
It is curious that our God is so. . .so. . .”orderly” . . .I guess is the best word for it. The authority structure is maintained. Herod was given advance notice of Jesus’ coming. He could have joined the wise men and been the first to worship Jesus but elected not to. Both the next Herod and Pilate as Caesar’s representative were given the opportunity to use their authority for good. Cyrus and Abraham’s Pharoahs did use their authority for good, but even Moses’ Pharoah was given multiple opportunities to repent…
But you know, we live in an orderly world. Every day, we swim in a sea of space and time, obeying its laws, despite the fact that light can cut through it, as though it were a garment. Here in our little corner of the galaxy we also obey laws of gravity and momentum that would have no meaning if we were mass-less spirits in the vacuum of space, and we never consider complaining about the “fairness” of it all.
I think perhaps the spiritual world must have laws also. Perhaps souls swim in a sea of justice and mercy but love and sacrifice can cut through it, as light cuts through the fabric of time and space. Oddly, we kick at the spiritual laws but never notice the physical laws (which frankly are more onerous). I mean I get to struggle with gravity every day getting out of bed, but it is rare that I have any reason to argue with my bishop or even my pastor.
Let it not be forgotten that in the two thousand years since the Resurrection, not one witness or testimony from the era of the Resurrection has ever been produced to the contrary. If Christ had not risen from the dead, surely one person from 1st century Galilee would have given testimony refuting it. Something like, “You know those crazy fishermen from Galilee that are spreading that story about the Prophet who rose from the dead–it didn’t happen. They stole the body and dumped it into the Dead Sea. That Resurrection business is all made up.”
Not one person—Jew, Roman, Gentile, nobody—ever came forward with testimony refuting the Resurrection. There are dozens of witnesses that the Resurrection happened, none that it didn’t. Surely, someone from that time would have come forward with a statement to the contrary.
The beauty of your teaching shows your love for the Christ and his Church Msgr. Thank you again for your blogs
I have long been taught the birth of the Church was the Immaculate Conception by way of Anne and Joachim. I once railed against a frankly heretical homily, and the poor people were at a loss for words. There is something about upholding and keeping the Atrium of the Lord, Our Blessed Mother, that causes scandal for better or worse in the hearts of men. Every attack is ultimately an attack upon She who bore the Eucharist.
Westerners who aspire only to presidents see no dignity in the princes of the Church, are undermining the reality of kingship, which is ultimately an undermining of Maria, Queen of all Christians. For, without princes, the king is reduced, and without a king there is no glory for the queen. Westerners who aspire for pure-religion devoid of all pagan influences is an attack upon the natural aspects of religion. And, should any religion be purged of all natural aspects, there should be nothing left to point to Christ. In this way, all good Christians should know that the Moon is the icon of Mary, lit by the brillance of the Sun, and in every day that dawns the Moon must decrease so that the Sun may increase. And yet, the Moon never loses her physical nature. Westerners who rail against the idea of the Church are indeed railing against the indefectibility of God’s Word. I will offer a personal example being a man of Utah. Mormonism in it’s bestial parallel hierarchy is nothing more than an lower-archy from hell. They deny the Crucifixion and instead stay in the Garden where He Wept. They do this of course to avoid speaking of Mary. In an thinly veiled attempt to hide their unconcious contempt of Her, they say only She is too sacred to talk about. The veil is thin. And it is my belief that Mormonism is the culmination of all Western religions, a supreme act of toleration that casts only the abominable Catholics to the outer darkness. These most-Western of all Westerners have cast Mary in the outer darkness implicitly by staying in the Garden and not walking the Way of the Cross to the place of the skull where She is found crushing the very head of the Serpent who is in Garden hissing, “Eat this and be like gods.”
I digressed.
Thank you for monsignore for noting that Peter acts on what the Church already ‘keeps in Her Immaculate Heart’. Notice that the Blessed Mother is not at the Tomb since His Holy Face was with Her countenance even in His Death, and with Her always unto eternity.
Good tidings.
In addition to the Gospels, didn’t the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. formally set down the Church’s belief in the Resurrection?