Eastern Christian Books: John Zizioulas on The Meaning of Being Human

Eastern Christian Books: John Zizioulas on The Meaning of Being Human

Sebastian Press

Related:
To Be a Priest of Creation

T&T Clark: Priests of Creation: John Zizioulas on Discerning an Ecological Ethos

"Offering"

After 19 years of experience I can tell you, offering Mass never gets old. pic.twitter.com/BlHL0uQ8FD

— Fr. Aquinas Guilbeau, OP (@FrAquinasOP) June 9, 2021

What Notion of Sacrifice?

“Christ is at once priest and sacrifice, God and temple. He is the priest through whom we have been reconciled, the sacrifice by which we have been reconciled, the temple in which we have been reconciled, the God with whom we have been reconciled.” -St. Fulgentius of Ruspe

— Fr. Aquinas Guilbeau, OP (@FrAquinasOP) March 26, 2021

Tertullian: The Source of a Grand Mistake?

“We must escort it to the altar of God in a procession of good works to the sound of psalms and hymns. Then it will gain for us all that we ask of God.” -Tertullian

— Fr. Aquinas Guilbeau, OP (@FrAquinasOP) March 12, 2021

Thread Reader

The Source of the Tweet May be Probelmatic

But the thesis on"Western Church history" is interesting. Is St. Augustine the primary Latin source for its "ontology of Holy Orders"? And is Latin "theology of the priesthood" based upon St. Augustine solely, or are there other Latin fathers who are sources for it?

Cassian bought the mystical theology of the Egyptian Desert as described by Evagrius of Pontus to southern France. He adapted this desert mysticism to appeal to Latin Europeans. Reforming old monasteries and building new ones. Thus beginning the Gothic revolution. pic.twitter.com/oURBEgWWGs

— OZAbbey (@9AbbeyOZ) December 19, 2020

Cassian's master was Evagrius of Pontus d399CE. Over 15 years Evagrius had interviewed & documented the greatest of the Egyptian-desert mystics. He was meticulous & thorough. A brilliant psychologist. He cataloged 9 Logosmoi, which became Cassian's 8 passions & Gregory's 7 vices. pic.twitter.com/wIMQ8EHrI3

— OZAbbey (@9AbbeyOZ) December 19, 2020

Related:

John Cassian and Augustine on Peter and on the pope via /r/Christianity https://t.co/bLf6gJXSqX

— reddit_christianity (@rd_christianity) March 13, 2018

A Discussion of the Perversion of the... Priesthood?

Should be the presbyterate. The linking of the clerical sex scandal to a perversion of the notion of priesthood, even if it is "bad" forms of priesthood, as opposed to "good" forms of priesthood (if the authors would admit of any other than the Christian one)... that is perhaps the most problematic thesis. The original article.

Video, for you weirdos not just listening to this while you pretend to be working:https://t.co/nffY84ENWo

— New Polity (@PostliberalTho1) November 16, 2020

Tasks of the Royal Priesthood?

Rather, our vocation as Christians is to enter into Paradise and therefore to live as the Divine Council lives, which is to minister as the royal priesthood -- blessing, cultivating, exorcising, healing, interceding for mankind and for all creation. 5/

— Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick (@FrAndrewSDamick) November 14, 2020

Latin Theology of the Presbyterate

Who Is the Priest We Want?
by @JohnCavadini of @McGrathND https://t.co/KzNAOSStNV

— Church Life Journal (@ChurchLifeND) August 21, 2020

X-Ray of the Priest in a Field Hospital

The Sacraments of Initiation and the Eucharist

A point linked to participatio actuosa, but I decided to put this as a separate post.

Fr. Robert Skeris writes:

Membership in the Church, which is brought about by valid baptism, makes one a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Priest, to whose priesthood one is interiorly conformed1 through the baptismal character.

In comparison with the high priesthood of Christ Himself, this priesthood of the baptized is analogous, by an analogy of proper proportionality.2 And since confirmation is related to baptism as growth is related to birth, it is clear that the so-called universal priesthood of all believers is ontologically based upon baptism, and not upon the sacrament of confirmation.3 As St. Jerome aptly phrased it, "Sacerdotium laici, id est baptisma."4

This is a point made by Sacrosanctum Concilium and repeated by many who use that document as a reference for explaining participatio actuosa.

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

It should be baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, whether by imposition of the hands or by the anointing by oil, that together lead to the third sacrament of initiation, the Eucharist. But given the historic separation of the first two sacraments of initiation by the Latins, they are stuck claiming that it is baptism alone. 

If they were to return to the usage of scripture, baptism by water AND the Holy Spirit, with individual sacraments being returned as parts of the same ceremony as the norm, there could be some wiggle room for reinterpreting baptism in Latin documents in this way. But it would be better to admit that a mistake was made in their sacramental theology.

A Latin Perspective

First Things: Go to the Altar by Jane Stannus

The cassocked one answered seriously, “A priest is one who primarily offers sacrifice.”

I'll have to see if there are any dogmatic statements by Latin churches before Trent. From the Concil of Trent, Session XXIII:

CHAPTER I.
On the institution of the Priesthood of the New Law.
Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins. 

 Only now do I understand the implications of what my friend said many years ago, regarding the confusion that arises from having the same word translate  ἱερεύς and  πρεσβύτερος.


1 Peter 2:9 in Greek and Latin (Nova Vulgata).
Priest: sacerdos. Priesthood: sacerdotium.



It is standard for the same word to be used for both Greek terms in English and in Latin.
I don't know when the Latin sacerdos first began to be used to translate for the Greek hiereus and prebyteros. Is this true of all of the languages (especially European) in use in the patriarchate of Rome? It is the case that the English word priest is derived from the Latin presbyter, a borrowing by Jerome from presbyteros. Somewhere along the line, ecclesiastical Latin came to prefer sacerdos over Jerome's presbyter? Even though this goes against its normative translation of Holy Scripture?

wiktionary

wikipedia

From Google:

Origin

And a related blog post by "Hadley Rectory": The Etymology of English "Priest" 

So for these languages (and French, but not necessarily the other Romance languages?) that the word used to translated presybter/presbyteros (and referring to that Holy Order) was also used to translate hiereus, rather than the word for hiereus being used to translate presbyteros as in Latin.

Denzinger (in Latin)

Let us continue with the First Things essay:

“Yes, He offered Himself for us on Calvary nearly two thousand years ago. However, in order for us to come into contact with the merits of His sacrifice, the priest renews it in an unbloody way each day.”

Merit. What Christ merited in His sacrifice are the benefits which are given to us by God. A Tridentine view, derived from Aquinas? (How dominant was this opinion about Christ's merits among the schoolmen?) Does merit imply some sort of exchange or return? Not necessarily but it does entail God giving something on condition of some requirement being satisfied. Can Latin "merit" be harmonized with the soteriology of the early Church? In a somewhat roundabout way, a way that needlessly complicates our understanding of the Divine Agape.

Writing for Rorate Caeli on March 24, Father Richard Cipolla suggested that Catholics’ greatest anxiety at this time of locked churches isn’t missing Mass per se, but rather missing an opportunity to receive Communion, overlooking, he fears, the true nature and importance of the Mass itself. This time of waiting and deprivation offers an excellent opportunity to consider the enormous significance of each Mass—with or without communion of the faithful.

Why is the Mass so important? Well, quite simply, the Mass is the sum and substance of our religion. It is the jewel that blazes at the very heart of Christianity, the unbloody renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, carried out continuously in every time and place until the end of the world. It is the heart of our Christian lives, for to be a Christian, as one of the greatest missionaries of the 20^th century said, is to be one “who offers himself as a victim on the altar with Our Lord.”

To assist at Mass is not merely to attend a commemoration or a memorial of an event that happened long ago. The holy sacrifice is an action that happens now, in the present. The priest, acting in persona Christi, approaches the altar—not a table, for this event is not reducible to a meal—to perform the sacrifice, accomplished in consecrating the bread and wine. When the priest pronounces the words of consecration, Saint Gregory Nazianzus tells us, he “sunders with unbloody cut the Body and the Blood of the Lord, using his voice as a sword.” The faithful assisting at Mass unite their hearts to the priest and unite their lives and sufferings to the Victim, that all may be offered to God together.

Renewal? Is that the same as "repeated"? I think Latins in general prefer a word like "re-presented." It is clear that she does not mean repeated from the second and third paragraph. As for "offering it up," how far does this go back in popular Latin piety?

Can the Mass be properly and efficaciously accomplished in the absence of the faithful? A group of progressives recently argued on blog Pray Tell that it cannot. Questioning the theological basis for Mass without a congregation, they claim that the Second Vatican Council changed the liturgy into a communal and public action of the baptized, which the priest can’t accomplish without them.

But they’re wrong. Vatican II said nothing about private Masses. Rather, we ought to look to Session 22 of the Council of Trent. As we consider the locked doors of our churches in this time of crisis, we can take comfort from one fact: Christ is both priest and sacrifice, and therefore a valid Mass is always efficacious, meaning that it always accomplishes the ends for which it is offered. Its efficacy is not determined by the presence of the faithful; the sacrifice of the Mass, Ott tells us, is the sacrifice of the Church, and in that sense is never “private.” Nor are the faithful needed to offer the sacrifice since it is Christ Himself who offers it through His priest. 

The efficacy of the Mass was so beautifully explained to me by the priest who kindly permitted me to publish the story about the construction worker that it’s worth reproducing his words here:
“The holy Mass,” he said, “is the supreme act of religion that renders to God what is due to Him: adoration, thanksgiving, and propitiation for sin, after which we can then present to Him our petitions.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ perpetuates this supreme act Himself throughout the ages, through the ministry of His priests upon our holy altars. He abases Himself in perfect adoration before the Godhead, acknowledging our utter dependence upon Him. The most perfect praise of the excellence of God above all wells up from His Sacred Heart.

“He offers nothing less than His own Sacred Body and Precious Blood, united to His Soul and Divinity, as the perfect gift of thanksgiving in the Eucharist… by which we render to God fitting and perfect gratitude for all of His goodness and mercy towards us.

“He likewise perpetuates the offering of His Sacred Body and Precious Blood in propitiation for sin. In and through the same sacrifice, Jesus presents our petitions (for we utterly depend on Him for all things)…

Has the act of sacrifice been separated from the Sacrament and its reception by the faithful, so that without the latter, it doesn't matter as it is the former that is more important?

The question is, in sacrifice do we "give" anything to God in thanksgiving, other than the thanksgiving?

More Than Just a Conclusion from Premises

Even if Latin liturgical progressives understand correctly that the context of the Eucharist is the gathered assembly, the ekklesia, and that a privately-celebrated Mass is a less than ideal substitute for this, Massimo Faggioli went too far with his tweet, even if he did delete it. As a Latin, does he feel the need to make reparation for his comment? Or has he transcended the need for all that medieval Latin stuff?

The grave blasphemy of Beans. Wherein Fr. Z rants and makes a constructive suggestion.

I do admit that Latin liturgical progressives go beyond the modest claim that I wrote in the first sentence of the post, and some of their exaggerations in the rejection of private Masses are wrong-headed. They should be addressing the claims of those who defend private Masses as a good norm, and not creating strawmen. For example, the necessity of priests saying Mass everyday, even if it has to be in private, for the sake of bringing the benefits of Christ's Sacrifice to the world--how should they respond to that?

On the topic of the Eucharist as sacrifice, we also have this piece: Easter Without Mass? by Douglas Farrow, in which Farrow gives competing views about the necessity of the current quarantine/lockdown in many parts of the United States. Farrow writes in explaining one view: "The temporal goods of life and health, even public health, do not override the mandate of the Church to offer sacrifice and oblation in every place." I'm not going to address either of the two views and try to come to a conclusion which is correct here. Rather, I'm more interested in this "necessity of offering sacrifice and oblation" as it is instantiated in the Eucharist of Christ in the Church.

The foundational Latin understanding of sacrifice as it relates to Christ is what is of importance in this debate for both sides. If the progressives want to reject the traditional Latin view, then let them do so in an intelligent way.

We can recognize that the Christian faithful are being deprived of "spiritual nourishment" without accepting the progressive agenda of liturgical reform and praxis, just as we can avoid exaggerated Latin beliefs of the necessity of multiplying Masses, private or otherwise.

John Cavidini on Co-Responsibility

Church Life Journal: Co-Responsibility: An Antidote to Clericalizing the Laity? by John Cavadini

An attempt at a solution to clericalism.

One of the fruits of the Diocese of Rome’s heightened attention to the pastoral work of the parishes, he says, was that it:

Helped to develop in the parishes, religious communities, associations and movements a consciousness of belonging to the one People of God which, as the Apostle Peter said, God made his own: “that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him”(1 Pt 2: 9).

To cite this verse is to invoke the People of God as a royal priesthood, with each member sharing, on the basis of his or her baptism, in the priesthood of Christ: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” The theology of co-responsibility begins by invoking Vatican II’s rediscovery of the priesthood of the baptized, the mystery of the People of God as a royal priesthood, with each member ordered towards the prophetic, royal and priestly vocation to “declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light,” that is, to mission, to evangelization. [emphasis mine]

1 Peter 2:4-5 RSV CE

⁴ Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; ⁵ and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 

1 Peter 2:9 RSV CE

⁹ But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,^[a] that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

The Greek:
Πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι , λίθον ζῶντα, ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον, παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες,  οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους [τῷ] Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον,  λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος, εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς....



The definition of priesthood, it would seem, is tied to sacrifice. Thus the popular might be that the baptized faithful offer spiritual sacrifices while the ordained priests/bishops offer Christ in the Eucharist (in which the baptized faithful also participate). Lumen Gentium §10, cited in this article, can be read as an elaboration of this basic distinction. But how is sacrifice to be understood? What if sacrifice instead is tied to declaring "the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" as a part of the thanksgiving integral to sacrifice, so that this is not to be considered "evangelization" as Benedict XVI and Cavidini are interpreting the words of St. Peter, but rather an elaboration of what it is to be a a priest, remembering the saving works of God and giving thanks to God whether in the assembly of the ekklesia or in private prayers to God?

If this objection holds, does it affect Cavidini's conclusions? Not necessarily. The conclusions may be dependent upon a distinction between the roles (or functions) of the episcopate/presbyterate and that of the Christian laity (as Latins have traditionally used the term), but they may hold even if we have to tweak the distinction only slightly.

In other words, the ordained ministry is not ordered towards itself, but rather it is the priestly people towards which the ordained priesthood is ordered, and that priesthood retains its fundamental character as the share in Christ’s priesthood, which constitutes the Church. On the other hand, when the baptized exercise their royal priesthood in evangelization, it is not just to spread knowledge of the Word of God dislocated from its ecclesial home, for then it is not really a priesthood, since the communion of the Church is communion in Christ’s sacrifice. Evangelization is intended to bring people to the encounter with the Risen Lord which is incorporation into the Eucharistic body through configuration to Christ’s sacrifice.

The priesthood of the baptized, as a priesthood, flows from the one sacrifice of Christ and its exercise is thus intrinsically ordered towards it. That means it cannot be exercised fully apart from the ministry of the ordained, nor is it truly exercised if it tends toward the rupture of communion instead of towards building communion. This would include evangelizing activity that rejected the authoritative teaching of the magisterium, or undertaken in defiance of legitimate hierarchical authority. At the same time, it does not mean permission is necessary: “there is no need of a supplementary mandate from the hierarchy” to exercise the duty to proclaim Christ which comes “by virtue of the grace of baptism” (Torrell, 130). The two priesthoods are mutually inter-related, and thus we have co-responsibility for the being and acting of the Church.

However, I do think it is a mistake to link evangelization to the royal priesthood of the Christian faithful, as if it were the main function of that priesthood, rather than thanksgiving. Cavidini writes later:

The royal priesthood remains primary as the end towards which the ministerial priesthood is ordered: “The Christian minister is not defined uniquely in relation to the Eucharistic body, but also, by this very fact, to its mystical Body, of which he is put in charge at his own level of responsibility” (ibid.). On the other hand, the exercise of the baptismal priesthood is always to promote the spiritual sacrifice to which all people are called, and thus is ordered towards the communion of the Church, effected only through the sacramental ministry of priests. Torrell points out that “The Eucharist is presented not only as the center of the whole sacramental organism, but also as ‘the source and apex of all the work of preaching the gospel,’” as we have seen. “What this means,” he comments later, “is that evangelization is not only ‘launched’ from the celebration of Eucharistic worship, whence it has its fecundity, but that it ‘lands’ there, because it is only by the Eucharist that the full insertion of believers into the Body of Christ is achieved” (ibid. 181).

 As this stands, if there is no further elaboration about what spiritual sacrifice means, it is mostly unobjectionable.

This is another way of saying that a priest whose priestly ministry is obviously and visibly ordered toward the building up of the leadership of the laity in the mission and acting of the Church, and not necessarily towards running it, administering it, organizing it, and supervising it and subordinating it to its own ministry. It also means recognizing it (cf. Nichols, 154).

Such an ordained ministry implies its co-responsible complement, too. The true exercise of the baptismal priesthood is not free lancing independent of the ecclesial community or its communion in the Eucharist for which it is dependent on the ordained minister. Nor is it exercised independent of the authoritative teaching of those in apostolic succession. There is no true exercise of the baptismal priesthood independent of leadership proper to Holy Orders. The two kinds of leadership are co-responsibly related. We can see models of this in some of the heroic leaders leading up to the Council. Dorothy Day, for instance, led a whole new movement in evangelization, completely on her own initiative. Her partnerships with various priests, and Fr. Pacifique Roy, were studies in co-responsibility for the mission and being of the Church,[5] for she centered her movement’s life around the Eucharist and thus the ordained priesthood, and, though she did not ask Cardinal Spellman for permission to operate, she never defied him on matters pertaining to his teaching and pastoral authority, and fostered, rather than broke, communion.

A Church in which the center of gravity has, as it were, shifted, in which the co-responsible leadership of those exercising the priesthood of the baptized was the norm, would be a Church we seem not to have really imagined yet. We have since Vatican II operated with a mindset that has not absorbed its major insights in ecclesiology because, I think, we have decided to analyze the call for lay participation as a call for increased "power" of the laity but in a structure that is essentially intact, one that is excessively clericalized and thus ironically secularized, reduced thereby to a power structure conceived independently of its ordering towards a “mystery of communion.”

It is probably uncontroversial say that Dorothy Day was thea leader of the Catholic Worker movement in the United States, if not the leader. (Fr. Peter Maurin could be considered the other, until his death.) It is also probably uncontroversial to say that she was some sort of feminist, even if she wasn't a suffragette and did not call herself a feminist. An appropriate example of "lay leadership" or co-responsibility, or a politically correct one?

Lay people do have their own sphere of action, the political arrangement where they are to be found. There some may be leaders of others. (Hence "traditional" notions of leadership are incompatible with feminism, though most American academics support it or at least outwardly do so.) But it should also be stated that with respect to the life of the local Church (whether one think of the local Church as the grouping of parishes, or the parish as a manifestation of the local Church), the Christian laity also have a leadership role. While the presbyterate/episcopate have authority as teachers and oversight over certain activities touching upon "faith and morals," there are likely limits to the authority they have with respect to the latter. Oversight may entail only the power of approval or sanctioning an activity, and not necessarily leadership.The limits to the authority of the presbyterate/episcopate with respect to the life of the Church need to be explored further.

A Confusion Regarding the Christian Priesthood

What Catholic clergy and laity have in common: a Gospel mission

There are also important distinctions in the priesthood of all baptized Christians and those who are priests and bishops by virtue of sacramental ordination. The hierarchical priesthood is not simply “more of the same priesthood that the baptized have,” he added. “It’s not a super priesthood somehow completing, displacing or superseding the common priesthood.”

At the same time, there is a “priesthood which marks the whole Church as a priestly people.” This does not imply “that there is an ‘inner Church’ of ‘super Christians’ and that that is the hierarchy,” because that falls into the error of clericalism.

“if baptism confers a priesthood, it means it confers a participation in the sacrifice of Christ which, made present in the Eucharist, makes the Church,” Cavadini said.

“The exercise of this priesthood, then is ordered towards communion, and evangelization, if it is truly an exercise of the baptismal priesthood, is intended to bring people to the encounter with the Risen Lord, which is the incorporation into the eucharistic body, through configuration to Christ’s sacrifice.”

McGrath Center

ἱερεύς v. πρεσβύτερος

The People of God

It goes on to recognize an ecclesiology that sees the sacrament of Baptism as the foundation of the vocation and ministry of every Christian, clergy and laity alike. Thus all the People of God together constitute a single community.

And what of chrismation? No one wants to touch that question - why not? Byzantines and others could easily become polemical with respect to Latin pastoral practice regrading confirmation.

the document

Authentic [Latin] Catholicism?

Rebuilding Authentic Catholicism upon the Ruins of the Conciliar Experiment by Peter Kwasniewski

The solution to the mess into which we have fallen through a long series of bad decisions is simple and at the same time exceedingly hard: we have to make the opposite decisions, again and again. The Church needs to stop thinking about new strategies, new programs, new pastoral initiatives, or any statistical measure of success, and resolutely throw herself again into the proclamation of the full Gospel, including its “hard sayings”; the celebration of solemn and beautiful liturgy; the building of monasteries and religious communities on the foundation of the usus antiquior; the cultivation of an intellectually robust curriculum in seminaries and universities; an encouragement of large families, as in the old days, and the promotion of homeschooling. Only by taking a seriously countercultural path is there any long-term hope for Catholicism. As a believer, I am convinced that the Faith will survive and prosper again, but only where such things are being done, or to the degree that they are being done.

Even if the OF in the vernacular is not the proper tool for cultivating a Christian spirituality rooted in the liturgy, will Latin traditionalists fare much better?

Latin Theology of the Priesthood

HPR: Patristic Ressourcement in the Theology of the Priesthood by Dr. Joshua Madden

Theology of Presbyterate/Episcopate

MASCULINITY AND THE LITURGY by Fr. Thomas Loya

If the priest acts in persona Christi, how does he strengthen the "mystical understanding of his husbandhood and fatherhood"? Do presbyters participate in Christ's role as Bridegroom/Husband for the Church as the Mystical Bride? Not directly but as intermediaries or representatives of Christ who teach and lead, subordinate to Christ and the Holy Spirit. But in what way is Christ analogous to the human husband? Who would claim that Christ and the Church share some sort of egalitarian or even a complementarian relationship?

How Catholics Can Realize the Royal Priesthood of the Laity and Rebuild a Church in Crisis

The Catholic Church in Crisis