Commentary 25/07/07 Ecclesial osteoporosis: Reconnect with our spine

[성기화 요셉]

The entire ecclesial body must care for its relationship to the collective deposit of faith

A file photo showing Catholic cardinals walking into a building in Rome. In Catholic Church, it is considered that the college of bishops collectively expresses our ecclesial connection to the initial college of apostles. (Photo supplied)

By Michel Chambon

Published: July 07, 2025 03:54 AM GMT

Updated: July 07, 2025 03:55 AM GMT

The Creed teaches us that a Christian community is called to be an apostolic reality. What does this fourth adjective of the Church mean? In what way can this apostolicity guide us toward a healthier and more radiant Church?

The term apostolic, first and foremost, refers simply to the apostles. It denotes the community of men that Jesus formally instituted to guide the Church. This group of apostles consisted of 12 men, not just one, to care and lead his disciples.

In the Gospel texts, we see that these men had different temperaments, that they were not perfect, but were sinners. Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus and later hanged himself, was even one of the apostles.

Moreover, these 12 men did not form a circle frozen in time, for immediately after Judas's departure, he was replaced by another, and gradually other men were added to the apostles.

Today, in the Catholic Church, it is considered that the college of bishops collectively expresses our ecclesial connection to the initial college of apostles. This link to the bishops who manifest the apostolic continuity is a foundational reality among Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox, and a variety of Eastern churches.

But depending on the church and on which aspects of the apostles’ lives are emphasized, the term apostolic can indicate many different things. Some apostles are used to highlight the importance of evangelization, others to emphasize the role of authority in the Church, and others still to point to a closeness with the historical Jesus.

Above all, however, the term apostolic means that the structural foundation of the ecclesial body — its skeleton — is the twelve apostles. The apostles compel us to move beyond a binary Jesus–us view; they were an intermediary and fundamental community through which the Church came to be structured in the footsteps of Christ.

Thus, the twelve apostles form the different bones of the Church. They vary in size and scope, but are interconnected to organize the Church, helping it to stand upright — as a living, resurrected body, capable of movement. The solidity of their experience, their diversity, and their interconnected relationships give form, coherence, and flexibility to our body.

Apostolicity is therefore not merely a symbolic link to men of the past, or a basic guarantee of a more authentic faith — it is also a way of affirming the importance of mediation between Christ and us, and of collegial governance.

These apostles, diverse and equal, and the direction they gave, remain points of reference for Christian life today. When the link to the apostolic college is lost, or when these bones become weak, the Church suffers from more or less severe osteoporosis. It struggles to stand and to walk forward.

But how does this ecclesial osteoporosis manifest today? How is the Church eventually losing its apostolicity?

Certainly, some Christian communities do not consider apostolicity to be particularly important. It is enough to pray to Jesus in the secrecy of one’s heart. Attachment to the example and authority of the apostles is not really essential. That, already, is a loss of apostolicity.

But even within churches such as the Catholic Church, which firmly believes in the importance of the apostles, our connection to this college of apostles can become weakened. We, too, can suffer from ecclesial osteoporosis. When we begin to believe that being friends with Jesus and having a direct relationship with him is sufficient, we weaken the structural role of the bones. Bishops or apostles are no longer necessary — we know Jesus directly and immediately. Scriptures are enough, and I have no need for that community of men responsible for the Church.

But the opposite is also true. Sometimes we exaggerate the role of a particular bishop, cardinal, or pope. We refuse to place them within a community of equal, imperfect men who govern the Church together. By isolating and idealizing a single leader, we reject the apostolic college — and the apostolicity that comes with it. Blindly following a bishop is not enough to be an apostolic Church. This form of clerical osteoporosis, which isolates a man from his brother bishops and from the rest of the ecclesial body, is also a way of erasing the diversity of bones that structure the ecclesial body and keep it standing and flexible.

These two forms of osteoporosis are, unfortunately, very common. It manifests when certain groups reject the collegial authority of bishops — or of the Second Vatican Council. It manifests when a bishop behaves like an emperor in his diocese, accountable to no one. It manifests when a bishop rises up against the Holy See, publicly attacking the pope and his collaborators.

When relationships between bishops and laypeople are distorted — when bishops are rejected or isolated — it is the entire ecclesial body that suffers. Unable to rely on the full strength of its skeleton, the Church slumps, broods in its pain, and closes in on itself, unable to move forward.

What treatments are available for ecclesial osteoporosis? Fortunately, there are many. First, there is the study of Christian history, especially that of the apostolic era, partly preserved in the New Testament. Immersing ourselves in these texts helps us learn directly from the apostles.

Next, to remain attached to their successors, there are many mechanisms to cultivate a dynamic relationship between bishops and the entire ecclesial body. In many dioceses, bishops are relatively accessible, communicating abundantly, visiting parishes frequently, collaborating actively with clergy and other ministers of the Church, and personally administering the sacrament of confirmation. In fact, one or more bishops are clearly identified by the faithful.

But apostolicity also involves the capacity of bishops to work together — in their diversity. At the local level, dioceses are grouped to encourage this collaboration. At the national level, bishops typically have episcopal conferences to meet regularly and serve the people of God together. At the continental level, structures for cooperation and dialogue among bishops also exist. Finally, at the global level, bishops are required to visit the Holy See regularly for collective work sessions and group consultations.

Lastly, to combat ecclesial osteoporosis that disconnects us from the example of the apostles and the college of bishops as a diverse body, canon law also provides safeguards.

This body of binding legal texts — though too rarely made accessible to the faithful — offers formal mechanisms for holding one another accountable. In some extreme cases, it even allows for legal proceedings against solitary tyrants. Indeed, within the Church, there is an objectified legal framework to promote a healthy closeness between the ecclesial leadership and the people of God.

In short, if sclerosis is a real and persistent ailment in our Church, the Catholic world has developed an entire array of treatments to combat unhealthy separations. To keep the Church standing, able to rely on its backbone and move forward, the entire ecclesial body must care for its relationship to the collective deposit of faith that comes from the apostles and continues to be upheld by the episcopal college.

This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series on four core ecclesial diseases. You can read the first, second and third parts here.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.