A Long Essay for Holy Saturday

CWR: This Holy Saturday: Social Distancing, Solitude, Healing by Brad Bursa, Ph.D.
Msgr. Luigi Giussani claims that “the only condition for being truly and faithfully religious…is to live always the real intensely.”i This line stays with me in these solitary days, when “the real” has become surreal. [...]

The author uses "death as isolation" as the first explanatory key, basing it on the writings of Joseph Ratzinger.

Following the Judeo-Christian tradition, Ratzinger does not view death in a one-sided manner, as if it were only an experience of bodily corruption that marks the end of one’s physical life. Instead, “death is present as the nothingness of an empty existence which ends up in a mere semblance of living.”^v Ratzinger says, “Death is absolute loneliness…the loneliness into which love can no longer advance is — hell.”

The second explanatory principle is the definition of Person within the Trinity as "relation":

In God, in the Trinity, person is pure relativity, of being turned toward the other. The concept of person does not refer to substance, but to relationality. God’s substance is one, and person, as the “pure relativity of being turned toward the other” does not lie on the level of substance, but on the “level of dialogical reality.” Thus, Ratzinger concludes that relation is recognized as a third fundamental category “between substance and accident.”^xvii Therefore, in and through Christian faith, theology manifests “the Christian newness of the personalistic idea in all its sharpness and clarity,” for “it was faith that gave birth to this idea of pure act, of pure relativity…it was faith that thereby brought the personal phenomenon into view.”^xviii

Ratzinger argues that the early developments in Trinitarian understanding offer profound insight in the area of anthropology as well. For the human being to be made in God’s “image and likeness,” must, in some way mean that the human being is a personal being. In other words, the human being is “not a substance that closes itself in itself, but the phenomenon of complete relativity, which is, of course, realized in its entirety only in the one who is God, but which indicates the direction of all personal being.”^xix The human being exists as a personal being, precisely because the human being is a spiritual being. God takes the basic material of earth and forms the human being, but human being only enters into existence after God breathes into the formed earth the breath of life. Now, “the divine reality enters in,” for “in the human being heaven and earth touch one another….the human being is directly related to God.”^xx Based upon what has been developed in the area of Trinitarian theology, to be in God’s image, according to Ratzinger, “implies relationality,” setting “the human being in motion toward the totally Other”….“it means the capacity for relationship…the human capacity for God.”^xxi To be in God’s image means to be personal, it means the human being has the capacity for a personal relationship with God and to exist as a personal being, as a social being, in relation to others human beings.

Is sociability a participation in the Divine? Can we say that primates participate in the Divine? Yes, but it may be foreign to some of us. All of His creation participates in God in its own way.

Would Byzantine Christians have any difficulty with using the Divine relations to enhance theological anthropology? I don't know.

Charles Taylor on Solidarity and Fairness

Church Life Journal

This is how the source of the deep cracks in modern capitalist societies presents itself. There are two contexts that justify our deeds; we can define them as the “democratic” and the “capitalist.” To be honest, we cannot reject either one. We cannot reject the democratic context, because it has become a central, inseparable element of our vision of legitimacy. We also cannot reject the capitalist context, because we have long ago passed the stage where we would be satisfied with a stagnant economy. Thus, we have to come to terms with them both. The first context is a great source of solidarity. When we manage to awaken and activate the feeling of our common citizenship we are capable of acting in often surprising ways by authentically devoting ourselves to others or in the name of the common good. This is especially apparent during times of war or during movements of national liberation—in a certain sense the Polish Solidarity movement was an important instance of such a movement. The second context demands that we put solidarity to the side and agree to bend or even break the rules of reciprocity in the name of effectiveness, which, it is apparent, we cannot renounce.

These are the two contradictory principles -both are illusionary and the illusions of "democracy" and "greater wealth" are used by the oligarchy to provide a cover of legitimacy. Does Taylor realize this, or has he drunk the Kool-aid as well? Being subject to the same state is insufficient to create "solidarity" and Taylor fails to recognize "civic nationalism" cannot overcome substantial differences in group identity or culture. Comparing Canada (or the U.S.) to a rather homogeneous ethnic state like Poland is comparing apples and oranges.

Solidarity is a solution but Taylor has no adequate means to promoting it because he doesn't acknowledge real divisions. Moreover, the state itself is opposed to solidarity and will not permit any true solidarity (as opposed to companionship in subjugation) to exist because solidarity is a threat to its power and existence.

N.T. Wright | The Cross

Holy Friday Lamentations

Holy Friday Burial Vespers

Service of the Twelve Passion Gospels

Good Friday special event: Arvo Pärt's Passio

David Bentley Hart - Death, Sacrifice, and Resurrection

Vénération de la Sainte Couronne d'épines à Notre-Dame de Paris

Great and Holy Friday - Passion Matins

When Does Divine Adoption Take Place?

In an otherwise decent piece from last year about Christ and the Beatitudes, making use of the works of Fr. Jacques Philippe, Jared Staudt writes in The goal of Lent: Conformity to Christ:

We are called to become Christ, embracing the adopted sonship bestowed on us at Baptism and entering into the love of the Father. Jesus offers us his own grace and virtues and calls us to live and love like him in the world.

"Traditional" Latin praxis forces him to write this, because of the separation of Baptism from Confirmation, so that Latin infants are not "baptized by water and Spirit" on the one same occasion, but at different points in their life, if at all. This despite the clear testimony of St. Paul that it is the by the Spirit, whom we have received [through the laying on of hands by the Apostles or their successors or by the ministering of blessed oil], that we are able to cry, 'Abba! Father!'" (Romans 8:15; cf. Galatians 4:4-7). Even if we say our adoption as sons of God begins with water Baptism, can we say it is completed without Confirmation? No. Does anyone wish to ponder what the [spiritual] consequences are for incomplete Christian initiation?

When do Protestants receive the Spirit of God, if they do not have the sacrament of "Confirmation"? And how do they know they have received the Spirit by the laying of hands if the one who is laying on hands simply claims he has received this power from God or from someone else? How do we know that they have the authority and power to pass the gift of the Holy Spirit, if they cannot show that they have received this authority from the Apostles?

Latins should not be seeking this dubious gift from Pentecostals or those imitating Pentecostals -- they should be receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. (And if they have doubts about the efficacy of the first time they received it because they were not properly subjectively prepared for it, should they ask for a conditional administering of the sacrament?)

The Weeping of Christ

One more follow up to this post. I definitely need to become more familiar with the writings of St. Maximos, so I can't write a response to his writings on this topic.

What of the difference between Christ and the mourners for Lazarus? Did the mourners, including Lazarus' sisters Mary and Martha, sin when they experienced grief, wept, and spoke and acted while in that condition, or was their sadness blameworthy?

It may be objected that Christ does not have any reason to weep for Lazarus as such, because of the knowledge that He possesses. He knows that Lazarus is not lost forever (but temporarily in Hades?). He knows that He will raise Lazarus from the dead (as a prefigurement of His own resurrection), and that Lazarus will be redeemed.

Is death an evil, something to be sad about, even if "everything will be ok in the end"? Even if we believe in the Resurrection of the righteous, when we grieve and weep for those who have passed away, is that a sin, a mark of imperfection or some sort? Can and did Christ feel sadness because someone has died, despite everything that He will do to remedy death? Christ knows as God that He saves; would it be objectionable to claim that Christ knows as man what he will do to redeem mankind ?

Does not Christ also know as man that He himself will be raised from the death on the third day? How could he make that prediction to His apostles if He did not know? And yet he nonetheless suffers in the garden before He is betrayed by Judas, and He has fear of death. How can such an emotion be justifiable (or sinless) if He knows that He will be triumphant over death? (And I know that St. Maximos at least does not claim that our Lord sinned in fearing His Passion and  His Death, though St. Maximos has his way of explaining it, something along the lines of His fear not affecting or swaying His will.)

It would seem that even for Christ, knowledge that Death does not have the last word, etc. does not exclude the possibility of associating emotions relating to death as an evil. So could it not be reasonable, then, for someone to be sad that a friend has death? And if it is reasonable, is it therefore sinless? And if sinless, could we not say that Christ did experience sadness that Lazarus had died, and not just out of compassion for the suffering of those who still live, not just sympathy, but a true sympathy, a suffering with others?

As I stated before, I hardly know the writings of St. Maximos, so I don't know if these objections are answered or deal with by him. I don't know if he (or St. Cyril of Alexandria) makes a mistake of applying a priori reasoning about human passion on Christ or the Theotokos. Perhaps the mourning of Martha and Mary was "imperfect," as their sadness lead to them being tempted to have doubts about Christ or to experience other disordered movements in the soul. We have their words at least to claim as evidence of this at least.

Is self-love bad? Disordered self-love that is so because of a rejection of God? Yes. But does that mean that everything that is done through disordered self-love is evil in itself? Is any passion associated with something perceived as evil necessarily blameworthy or sinful? Or only that which is motivated or left unchecked by disordered self-love? And would not passion motivated by a rightly-ordered love that is one with the Divine Agape be not blameworthy but praiseworthy? (If it is indeed possible to be righteous and yet experience the passions associated with evil or loss.) It seems that St. Maximos or St. Cyril of Alexandria might accept these distinctions, but need confirmation.

Σήμερον Κρεμάτε - Today He is Hung upon the Tree

Boston Byzantine Choir

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?

Holy Thursday 2020 with Archbishop Gudziak

Dr. Reinhard Huetter on John Henry Newman: Newman’s Contemporary Relevance

Related:


(Part 1 with Andrew Meszaros)

Fr. Blankenhorn on Spiritual Communion

The Exodus took Israel through a long period of profound physical penance and spiritual purification: the two seem to be inseparable in the spiritual life. The desert became the only way for Israel to reach the Promised Land, and by God’s saving will, the people could only traverse this barren place by turning to the Lord each day for manna and quail. Israel had to learn radical trust in God, to recognize her utter dependence on him for everything: the direction of travel, the way to order the community’s life, and, of course, the reception of sufficient food and water.

Related:


Updated (4/9):

An essay touching upon the same topic, but much shorter. Still, it refers to the same two sources, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Augustine's Journey to Easter by C. C. Pecknold

Yet it is precisely in this exile that we must find our way to Calvary this year. We may be weary pilgrims, spiritually gaunt for so much sacramental fasting, but we are still pilgrims who must press our lips to the Cross. We cannot enter into the Paschal Triduum through Skype or Zoom. So what are we to do, we poor banished children of pandemic?

St. Thomas Aquinas gives us a hint: “the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament.” He makes a distinction here between the signum and the res—the sacrament and the reality that the sacrament communicates. It is a distinction that goes back to St. Augustine.

There is at least one objection to this in the combox, concluding that if it is true, it renders going to Church superfluous. (Actually, it would render receiving the Sacraments superfluous.) I would think that desire is not enough -- one needs to ask God for the gift of life and trust in His goodness and mercy.

Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν. -- Matthew 7:7 (cf. Luke 11:9)

Reinhard Hütter: Development of Doctrine: What it is and Why it Matters

Palm Sunday in the Roman Rite

NLM

The Hymn of Kassiani

NLM

One Possible Happy Development At Least

A Latin View?

First Things: Embracing the Kind of Redeemer God Appointed by George Weigel

Animals feel pain, John Paul noted, but only men and women suffer. So suffering, even great physical suffering, has an inner or spiritual character; suffering touches our souls, not just our nervous systems. That is why the Bible is “a great book about suffering” (in John Paul’s striking phrase). And while the Scriptures contain many accounts of profound suffering, the Bible also teaches that “love . . . is the fullest source of the answer to the question of the meaning of suffering.” That was the truth to which Isaiah prophetically pointed in the “Suffering Servant” songs. To grasp that truth fully, however, humanity needed more than images or arguments; a demonstration was required.

That demonstration, Salvifici Doloris teaches, was what God ordained “in the cross of Jesus Christ.”

There the Son, giving himself without reservation to the Father’s plan of redemption, took the world’s evil upon himself and immolated it in perfect self-sacrifice to the divine will. On the cross, theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote, the Son freely bore “all that the Father finds loathsome,” and did so in order to “clear out all the refuse of the world’s sins by burning it in the fire of suffering love.” At Calvary, the divine wrath at the world’s wickedness coincides with the divine mercy, determined to heal all that evil has broken or disfigured. On Calvary, the purifying fire of divine love reaches into history and transforms everything in this world that seems to stand against love, including suffering and death. 

To embrace the cross is to embrace the logic of salvation as God has established that logic, not as we might design things. God’s “demonstration” does not end on Good Friday, however. It continues through Holy Saturday until the full meaning of “redemption” is revealed on Easter. 
There, in the Risen Lord who manifests what Benedict XVI called an “evolutionary leap”—a new and supercharged mode of human life—we encounter the supreme demonstration of the divine logic of redemption. There, in the “Lamb . . . [who] had been slain” (Revelation 5:6) but who is now gloriously, radiantly alive, we meet God’s triumph over death itself and over all that is death-dealing in the world. There, we meet the redeemer God ordained.

Jesus . . . has become a high priest forever. . . . For all eternity he lives and intercedes for us . . . there is no limit to his power to save all who come to God through him (First Responsory,  Office of Readings for Wednesday of the Fifth Week of Lent, from Hebrews 6:19–20, 7:24–25). 

What is the Greek for "intercedes" here? ἐντυγχάνειν

Who intercedes? Only Jesus as man? Or the Son of God, in the loving conversation with the Father? The Word of God, who creates anew?

What does God find "loathsome" or "hateful"? Not sin. But the consequences of sin, the ways in which His creation has been damaged or marred because of sin? God does not want suffering.

"There the Son, giving himself without reservation to the Father’s plan of redemption, took the world’s evil upon himself and immolated it in perfect self-sacrifice to the divine will." Here is something akin to the obedience which St. Augustine and Joseph Ratzinger would emphasize as being integral to the sacrifice of Christ. Does such a view find parallels in the East, whether Greek or Syriac? There is definitely scriptural warrant for this, for example St. Paul, Hebrews 5:8-10, Romans 5:19. And this is probably the primary way in which the satisfaction of Christ should be understood, as it is His obedience or "righteousness" which enables us to be obedient or "righteous."

My question is whether this obedience is the main or even the first part of how we should understand the sacrifice of Christ.

Time to Pick a New Theme

Though I'd like to keep it blue if possible. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there are many new pre-made templates on Blogger. How long will Google continue maintaining Blogger?

Jonathan Pageau on the Icons of Holy Week

"I found a court that agrees with me."

Fail harder.

This MoJ post by Adrian Vermeule.

So the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Governor Abbot's restrictions on "abortion procedures" during the COVID-19 emergency, referring to the same case that Vermeule did in his The Atlantic essay [Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)]. Does he, ostensibly zealous Roman Catholic that he is, not know that just because a judge said it, doesn't mean it is right or moral? (Roe v. Wade, hello? Lawrence v. Texas? Obergfell v. Hodges? etc.)

Does Vermeule think that attempts to make HPV vaccination mandatory on our young people are justified? Or just those vaccinations he (or "experts") think are necessary and at the schedule they advocate? Weighing rights claims may not be easy but it is mistake to think that the "right to life" overrules all other "rights," or even other moral considerations.

Vermeule is a statist and no reasonable Catholic should pay any attention to his opinions. Maybe some of those postconservatism conservatives can align themselves with Vermeule but they deserve no support either.

Eight Popes and the Crisis of Modernity

CWR Dispatch: “The crisis of modernity” through the eyes of eight popes by Paul Senz
Russell Shaw’s new book examines how the popes of the 20th century confronted the challenges and shaped the events of late modernity.

Ignatius Press

"At the turn of the century, the pope’s temporal power was significantly diminished, but his moral authority was on the rise."

His moral authority among whom? The temporal powers? The Church Universal? The bishops of Rome did have to make an adjustment with the loss of temporal power and of the papal states, but their claims regarding their authority over the Church Universal and of the world have not wavered. Thanks to advances in communications technology, it is now possible to implement an ultramontanist model of the papacy, with the bishop of Rome as the teacher of the world and of the Church Universal. But who is paying attention?

From the interview:

CWR: Each of these popes confronted the problems of modernity in unique ways. Do you think any of them were particularly successful, or any particularly unsuccessful?

Shaw: The pontificate of Pope St. Paul VI was in some ways a tragic story. Paul certainly engaged the big issues of his times and received an enthusiastic response at first—the reaction to his famous “no more war” United Nations speech illustrates that—but the good feelings and the enthusiasm came to an ugly end with the vicious reaction to Humane Vitae and its reaffirmation of the condemnation of contraception. Pope Paul has been vindicated by events since then, but at the time he was widely written off.

Does Shaw address the disastrous liturgical reform that took place under Paul VI?

CWR: The Second Vatican Council gets its own chapter in this book. What is different about Vatican II’s approach to “the crisis of modernity” from that of the two popes of Vatican II, Sts. John XXIII and Paul VI?

Shaw: As a matter of fact, I see more similarities than dissimilarities between Vatican II and the popes you mention. Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, is often criticized for being too optimistic, taking too sunny a view of the modern world, and I suppose there is some of that in its rhetoric. But the Council also saw many grievous problems and abuses in modern times, and it wasn’t hesitant in pointing them out. And the same might be said of the popes. All three—the Council, John XXIII, and Paul VI—were shrewd observers and serious critics of the world around them.

Maybe Vatican II did recognize some of the problems afflicting the "modern" world. But have Latins attempted to do anything else besides lecture and issue documents? In the war between Church and State, the Roman Catholic Church lost when it attempted to fight it on the world's terms, and it's losing now by relying upon outdated institutional practices that not only do not apply now, but never applied. Spiritual atrophy started long ago within the [Latin] [mono]episcopate, even if some think the "Catholic Counter-Reformation" was a moderate success.

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.

Fr. Stephen Freeman on the Sacrifice of God

20200401 The Sacrifice of God from God With Us Online on Vimeo.

Not "Romantics" at Heart?

What would St. Maximos the Confessor and others who think like him of the sadness manifested by lovers who have to part from one another? Sinful? Not fully continent with respect to their emotions, like children, and unseemly in their tears? Can reason permit the expression of emotion out as a sign of how deeply united emotion is to love? Can we say that certain Christian models of the divisions of the soul are too "stoic"? Do we need to concern ourselves so much with the emotions per se, or with their healing and how they are united to agape?

A MV for 孫露: 『離別的車站』 coupled with clips from the Korean Movie, The Classic.

One More from Denysenko

The Most Pressing Question on the Diaconate

Frequently, important texts dictate the deacon’s exercise of ministry. Lumen Gentium authorizes deacons to preside at baptisms and the rite of marriage. The deacon reads the Gospel. Orthodox service books appoint certain texts and ritual actions to the deacon, so the deacon performs those specific roles.

The problem with the process is a lack of inquiry into ministerial gaps. The Church tends to view the priest/pastor as a minister of everything, except ordination. The priest/pastor not only presides, but is also expected to teach, preach, console, guide, heal, and pray. The administrative burden is heavy: represent, report, supervise, manage budgets, raise funds, and everyone’s favorite – lead meetings.

The seminary system sustains this model of the priest/pastor as minister of everything. Obtain competence in dogmatic theology and the fundamentals of liturgy, and then learn how to guide everyone and anyone through this life to God’s kingdom. Christians take this model for granted, and we shouldn’t mess with it, because parish vacancies depend on a steady supply of priest/pastors.

Should the deacon be prepared to assume the responsibilities for administration, especially with respect to finances, and almsgiving on behalf of the community? What other analogous duties are there to the original duties given to St. Stephen and others? Preaching the Gospel and perhaps teaching, or supervising the community's catechists. Whether it is necessary for the presbyter to have oversight may be up for debate, if the oversight is provided by the bishop (in the monoepiscopate model of church governance). And the question of the role of deacons should raise the issue of clerical continence, as we have already seen a debate on whether the current reality of "permanent deacons" in the Roman rite conforms to the norms of Roman Canon Law.

A properly formed deacon can share in the Church’s ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, consoling, praying, and administration. Online descriptions of diaconal service in Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches suggest that deacons and deaconesses engage service with breadth and depth. Most of us know what we cannot do – we cannot preside (unless a bishop or community asks deacons to preside for liturgies without a priest).

Why should deacons not be able to "lead" (not necessarily "preside") prayer or liturgical services that are not the Eucharist?

This notion of the sharing of the Church’s ministry is crucial. The priest/pastor presides, and much – not necessarily all of the rest – is shared with Christ’s body. It will be necessary to change the way we imagine ministry for an authentic renewal of the order of the deacon. The Church has to accept that deacons will anoint the sick, lead prayer, preside at some services (when a priest/pastor is unavailable), and represent the Church. Priests/pastors will have to learn to treat deacons as equals in Christ’s ministry – not as subordinates who are deficient in some way.

With regards to anointing of the sick, perhaps he is thinking that within Byzantine theology, the blessing of the oil and the physical anointing may be considered two different acts and the latter can be done separately by someone other than the priest. I have heard that this possibility has been discussed in Byzantine Catholic circles. But in such instances the anointing can done by even a layman? If so, then in an emergency when the presbyter or bishop cannot do it, why limit it to just ordained deacons? Just for the sake of appearances? In the context of a liturgical rite, what is the scripture or traditional justification for a deacon being able to minister holy unction? And if none exists, then how can it be justified that deacons but not laymen can do so in the case of emergency?

Are deacons "equals" in Christ's ministry? How so? Not with respect to some of their roles or duties. Presbyters may be expected to should some of the burden of administration if their communities do not have deacons. Deacons are collaborators in the building of the Kingdom, and they should be respected as such, but who has ultimate supervision of things pertaining to teaching? The bishop (or the presbyters). It may be that this sort of claim of "equal status" is tenable if one sees both presbyters and deacons as being subordinate to the bishop (which I don't think Denysenko would deny), but that is the monoepiscopate model.

Two from Denysenko

Degrees of Active Participation in the Liturgy
Eucharistic Living without the Eucharist

Fr. Rutler on Holy Week

Crisis Magazine: Why Holy Week Is Holy by Fr. George W. Rutler

As one might expect, the essay does link our current circumstances and the circumstances of Manhattan with the meaning of Holy Week. But I was somewhat surprised to see him include this paragraph:

When Pope Francis was elected, there were naïfs who confused hope with optimism, and they expected a “Francis Effect” that would bring new life and vigor to a decaying culture. The decay has in fact worsened. Following some positive indications during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, church attendance has dwindled, and so have seminaries and convents. Between 2013 and 2018, on all continents save Africa and Asia, priestly vocations shrank about eight percent and there are 52,000 fewer women religious and 4,000 fewer male religious as a result. But as Pope Francis stood alone in Saint Peter’s Square, which was as empty as many churches in the West, and the rain poured, there was a magnificent sound to the silence. It was as if the holy Voice was saying once again—this time, to a generation that has come to think of itself as a substitute for God and as lords of a New World Order whose shrines are in Silicon Valley and Brussels—“You have not chosen me. I have chosen you.”

Another Response to Vermeule

Adrian Vermeule’s Nosebleed by Thomas FitzGerald
Originalism has plenty of tools within itself to advance the common good.

Professor Vermeule can better serve the cause of Catholic integralism by pairing his laudable zeal for the natural law and for statecraft as soulcraft with a statesmanly rhetorical restraint in better accord with sensibilities shaped over centuries by the democratic republican traditions of America’s providential constitution. I would respectfully suggest to the learned professor that if he continues to puckishly troll the American democratic and scholarly publics with visions of an authoritarian bureaucracy that suppresses all vices, the integralist project he has seemingly made his life’s work risks being the work of a hero with a tragic flaw—an admirably pious and zealous, impressively clever, scorchingly witty, but recklessly imprudent crusader for Christendom who “violently bloweth his nose, and bringeth out blood.”

The question to be asked of integralists: "How many divisions do you have?" Do they realize they have no political power to implement their "ideals" at the national level or even at the state level? If we need political theorists doing intellectual work, it's to continue the work of Aristotle and the localists, and to look for concrete solutions to oligarchy in specific places.

Interview with Fr. Julian Carron

Nate Hochman Responds to Vermeule

Is Vermeule still on a conversion high, with his particular theological development coming into play?

AmConMag: Adrian Vermeule’s Moral Madness by Nate Hochman
One can critique the limits of freedom and excesses of libertarianism without echoing the nihilism of totalitarians.

Sunday Themes for Great Lent

Dr. Peter Bouteneff

Fr. John Bethancourt

Holy Trinity Church (Santa Fe)
A Son's Journey to the Priesthood

Sacrosanctum Concilium and Marcel Lefebvre

Fr. Hunwicke: Once upon a time ...

Kissing in the Roman Rite

NLM

Alasdair MacIntyre: "The Justification of Coercion and Constraint"

Extraordinary Faith Episode 19 - New York City Part 1 of 2

NT Wright | The New Testament in Its World: How History Can Revitalize Faith

Fr. Julian Carron: Where is God?

Two Responses by Peter Kwasniewski to Bishop Christensen's (Boise) Directive

LSN: US bishop’s memo forbidding priests to say Mass ad orientem contains two serious errors
It is a matter of moral integrity that we make our cases based on what authoritative texts actually say, not on the 'Spirit of Vatican II.'

Remnant: AD ORIENTEM BANNED: Bishop of Boise Makes Revolution Official

Rejoice O Bethany

Boston Byzantine Choir:


alt

alt

alt

Organic Development and Its Reception by the Faithful

Does organic development of doctrine or of the liturgical rite require that it must be accepted and received by the faithful? If so, then the faithful must understand what is being given to them, should they not? If they do not understand it, how can they possibly judge and decide whether to receive it or not? The Latin answer might be they just need to submit and obey, but is that doing an injustice to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian faithful?

Those who create liturgical texts and prayers in Latin use monasteries for the use of the monasteries may not have a problem, provided that the simple monks understand Latin or come to understand Latin through their formation. (A similar point can be made with religious orders, but one can ask whether religious orders have the authority to modify or shape their own liturgical rites.) But what of the non-Latin-speaking faithful?

Regardless of whether the rejection by many Latins of the Pauline Missal and its implementation was objectively correct or not, could we not say that there were acting in accordance with their sensus fidelium, and rejecting what they viewed as not being orthodox (not in the sense of merely right belief but encompassing orthopraxy, right practice, right living or the correct giving or glory to God)?

(Similar points could be made not only with respect to liturgical reform, but Latin dogmatizing in their supposed "ecumenical councils" during the second millenium, to a populace that was ignorant of Latin and mostly ignorant of Scripture and the sources of the faith, if not the Christian faith.)

Eastern Christian Books: The Crucifixion of Eros: An Interview with Matthew Clemente

Eastern Christian Books: The Crucifixion of Eros: An Interview with Matthew Clemente

It is no secret that Christianity has throughout its history neglected the feminine, feared it, suppressed it, relegated it to the realm of the irrational and untrue. But if we’re being honest, we must admit that the Christ we meet in the Gospels is not a particularly masculine figure. A savior who comes not in power but in weakness, who preaches mercy instead of justice, forgiveness in place of revenge, who measures his wealth not by how much he can possess but how much he can give away, who shows us how to inhabit our vulnerability and be honest about our frailty, whose love is abandonment—that is not a very manly savior. 

What is the agenda here? Why is the interpretive lens being applied to Christian teaching and for what purpose? There is plenty that raises red flags, but I'm not going to catalog them here yet.

For comparison (or contrast?)...
The Redemption of Eros: Philosophical Reflections on Benedict XVI’s First Encyclical by D. C. Schindler

Deus Caritas Est:

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice.[1] Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn't the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn't she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator's gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?

See also MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2007

Perhaps Clemente would say that his view complements Benedict XVI's. I have doubts about his philosophical and historical premises.

A Good Change or Not?

Carlo Viganò doesn't think it is a good change, the dropping of the title "Vicario di Gesù Cristo." Cardinal Müller is not happy either.

Some might be hopeful and think that this reflects a change in Jorge Bergoglio's ecclesiology. But note that the title "Sommo Pontefice Della Chiesa Universale" is retained.

LSN: Abp Viganò: Has Pope Francis now ‘disavowed’ being Vicar of Christ?
The Pope now seems to declare himself 'absolute monarch even with respect to Christ,' according to the archbishop.

While previous yearbooks listed the title “Vicar of Christ” and the name of the reigning Pope under that title, this year’s annual directory simply lists the name “Jorge Mario Bergoglio,” the name of the man who became Pope Francis in 2013. The title “Vicar of Jesus Christ” stems from Holy Scripture where Jesus granted St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church.

This is, naturally the Latin interpretation of Matthew 16:19 and its application to Rome's claims about the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Lazarus Saturday

What is the Hope for Humanity? A discussion of technology, politics, and theology

N.T. Wright, Peter Thiel, and moderator Ross Douthat

2019 Claude Ryan Lecture on Catholic Social Thought

Dom Alcuin Reid Weighs in on the New Prefaces and Saints for the EF of the Roman Rite

The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well by Dom Alcuin Reid
Observations on Rome’s permission for new saints and more prefaces in the usus antiquior.

Rome moves slowly as we know, and there is no sign as yet of the official enrichment of the missal of Paul VI by its predecessor (that of 1962 and the tradition it transmits) on the horizon—indeed, idolatristic partisans of the missal of Paul VI seem determined to quash any possibility thereof. Their generation may need to reach retirement before a calm study of the question can proceed and bear fruit. In Roman time, that will not be too long.

Now, however, a mere thirteen years after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum—and numerous consultations and drafts later—we do have precisely that which the bishop could not envisage after dinner in Oxford that evening: the enrichment of the usus antiquior with some modern elements. Lest those who hold the ancient liturgical tradition dear become overly alarmed, it must be said that for the most part this enrichment has been done with care and sensitivity and can be welcomed without difficulty.

Can it be said with justice that the CDF handled this better than it did the Anglican Catholic Missal?

The omission of the preface for Advent amongst those newly permitted is truly odd, for the 1962 missal and its antecedents do not contain one. This must be regarded as a sadly missed opportunity. It would have greater use than some of the others approved. (It could be observed that the season of Advent is the ‘poorer sister’ in the older missal, not having proper Mass formulae for each day, as does Lent. Indeed, there is scope for careful future development here.)

Organic development. Is such a thing possible in a centralized patriarchate such as that of Rome? Wasn't Dom Alcuin Reid was going to discuss it in his sequel to The Organic Development of the Liturgy, but did he scrap that project? Or is he just busy and also waiting to gather more material for the book? According to this interview from a few years ago, he is still working on the book.

The other four prefaces, however, ‘come from’ the missal of Paul VI. Their central texts (the “embolism”) in the versions approved for use now in both new and old missals are practically identical. They have various origins, some quite ancient. But each of these texts as they appear in the missal of the usus recentior (the missal of Paul VI) and which are now permitted for (but which are not imposed on) the usus antiquior, have passed through the ideological sieve of the same study group (18b) of the Post-Conciliar Consilium which substantially edited and evacuated the theological content of the prayers of the missal (the collects, prayers over the gifts and postcommunion prayers), as the painstaking work of Professor Lauren Pristas (The Collects of the Roman Missals, 2013) has more than adequately demonstrated.

In respect of the four prefaces in question a detailed comparative study of their sources and content is necessary. That is impossible here (Anthony Ward and Cuthbert Johnson’s The Prefaces of the Roman Missal, 1989, is an exemplary resource for this). The prefaces of St John the Baptist and of Martyrs are “centonised” texts, that is effectively new compositions of the study group drawing on fragments of older ones. That is to say, they do not appear in liturgical tradition before 1970 in anywhere near the form given them by the Consilium which they now have. The preface of the Angels has an ancient precedent but is nevertheless an edited version of the traditional text. The preface for the Nuptial Mass is also edited, though less severely, without substantially altering the integrity of text.

Pope Benedict’s intention in 2007 was, without doubt, to enrich the usus antiquior with further prefaces. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. However, I very much doubt he intended to visit ‘products’ of the Consilium upon the older missal. It could easily have been augmented with the integral texts found in liturgical tradition. This would avoid the highly likely disdaining of the texts of these latter prefaces because of their at least perceived ‘tainted’ origin or editing in the post-conciliar Consilium. The lack of pastoral care and sensitivity here—seemingly sacrificed for the sake of an unnecessary textual uniformity between both missals—is regrettable and may well jeopardize the intent of the project, at least in part. So-called “traditionalists” can be hyper-sensitive. Offering the addition of at least three of these four texts may well offend those sensitivities.

Looks like I spoke too song about the CDF's handling of this. Did the CDF not consult any real liturgical scholars during the process? (Who would be recognized as such today?)

Three More Thoughts on the Anglican Catholic Liturgy

1. I remembered that the Anglican tradition was supposedly in need of correction by competent Roman authorities. Standing as an outsider now, I would expect that one of the problems Latins and Latinizing Anglicans would have with the BCP would have to do with its sacramental theology or the presence or absence of the word "sacrifice," given their adherence to Tridentine Latin Catholicism. How much disagreement was there in the past between Latins and Anglicans (and Protestants generally) about the Eucharist being a "sacrifice"? And was this debate grounded upon a misunderstanding of a principle, that is the meaning of "sacrifice" in Scripture and the Apostolic tradition?

Some sort of agreement between Anglicans and Latins was reached some time ago:
ARCIC-28 ~ Sub-Commission on the Notion of Sacrifice in the Eucharist in Anglican and Roman Catholic Theology
Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine (1971)

If I were to do further research on this topic, I would have to find out who the experts in Anglican Eucharistic theology are. But here are some affirmations by Anglicans that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Does that mean certain of their worship books were deficient with respect to form because they don't reflect a Tridentine Latin understanding of sacrifice? Maybe. Does that mean that they are objectively deficient from the standpoint of Apostolic tradition? Maybe not. Latins will insist that their understanding of sacrifice is dogma, promulgated by a valid "ecumenical council" and not just a preferred theologoumenon of that time -- will that barrier to dialogue have to be addressed first or is there some other common principle which we can employ?

Fr. Matthew S.C. Oliver:
No end to sacrifice: The legacy of Gregory Dix
No end to sacrifice: Anglicans on ‘offering’
No end to sacrifice: Mitchell and Meyers, Praying Shapes Believing

Eucharistic Sacrifice in Anglicanism

Anglican Eucharistic Theology: Essentially Compliant with both High and Low-Church Traditions.

A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology: Volume 2

On the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Christian Priesthood. by Alan S. Hawkesworth (1896)

Episcopal Church Glossary: Eucharistic Sacrifice

How We Worship

Greg Goebel:
Good Friday: Do We Still Need A Sacrifice?
What do Anglicans Believe about Holy Communion?

Calvinism and Eucharistic Sacrifice by Rev. Dr. Eric M. Parker

From 2013: Ordinariate Mass - look carefully and you can see Lutheran and Calvinist influences by Fr Gregory-Palamas

A Comparison of the Roman Missal, Missale Romanum and Divine Worship Forms of the Roman Rite Eucharistic Liturgy
2. Before the introduction of Divine Worship in 2015, people asked and even hoped for some sort of restoration of the Sarum Use, but translated into hieratic English. How "Sarum" is Divine Worship? Is there any possibility of a future creation and introduction of another Missal that is more "Sarum"? And would a Sarum rite, whether in hieratic English or Latin, have to be revised, just like the Roman rite, if the Latin notion of sacrifice is found to be in need of correction or modification?

From 2012: Sarum Use in the Ordinariates (see the tagged posts under Sarum and Anglicanorum Coetibus)
The Future Liturgy of an Anglican Ordinariate: Why not Sarum? - The Use of Sarum
What Happened to the Sarum Rite?
The Death of Sarum

3. On the Epiclesis:
Some Anglicans did introduce it, whether it was in imitation of non-Latin rites (or the Pauline Missal?) or because they erroneously thought one was originally present in the Roman Canon, I do not know.

I know Fr. Hunwicke is opposed to its introduction to the Roman rite, because apparently the Roman Canon must remain unchanged (or unreformed, that is unrestored?). Is organic development of the liturgy possible, especially one takes into account the ecumenical councils of the first millenium, which one could say that the Church of Rome has not received properly, not because of its rejection of the councils, but because of its conservatism with respect to its own ecclesial tradition? Should the Roman Canon (and the Eucharistic prayers of Latin rites in general) be more Trinitarian and explicit about the Holy Spirit, even if it is recognized that it is not "sacramentally deficient in form" in the current texts of the EF?

I say Latin rites though acknowledging that it is debatable whether any of the others are celebrated in a way that can be called "living," reflecting a proper engagement and liturgical spirituality of the people that includes an appropriate understanding during the liturgy of what is being prayed and a participation in those prayers.

Related:
Romantic and Patristic Liturgy in Louis Bouyer

NCReg: From Earth to Heaven With England’s Glory: Sarum Vespers Resound in Philadelphia
Catholics prayed together in the Pre-Reformation English form of the Roman Rite familiar to St. Thomas More and his contemporaries.
Peter Jesserer Smith

Anglican Catholics and Divine Worship

I was reminded that I needed to add something to the sidebar for the Anglican Ordinariate use...

Anglicans of the Personal Ordinariate is too long, "Anglicans" by itself is confusing. For now I use "Anglican Catholics" until something more appropriate is accepted. How are we to refer to the modern rite of the Anglican Ordinariates as embodied in Divine Worship? One possibility:
On the Ordinariate Use of the Roman Rite vs Anglican Use

There have been grumblings among Anglicans and Anglican Catholics (not "Anglo-Catholics") about the Missal that was promulgated, especially because of OF "Latinizations," and many blame a certain bishop for his involvement in the creation of that Missal. I can understand why, and it was probably a mistake to put Latins with a Latinizing agenda (or with with no deep scholarship in the Anglican tradition?) in such positions of authority (or subsequent positions of authority, but the old insistence on bishops being celibate and all that). Latins who celebrate or attend OF Mass are nonetheless impressed, and such a reaction is understandable if their baseline for comparison is the typical OF Mass celebrated in Anglophone countries.

The Beauty of the Anglican Usage Liturgy (the Ordinariate)
What I learned from celebrating Mass in the Ordinariate Use by Fr Matthew Pittam
New UK Ordinariate Mass with Elements of “Latin Mass”!

But have Anglicans been discouraged from entering into full communion of Rome because they find this Missal, Divine Worship, scandalous to their sense of tradition and patrimony? Hieratic Elizabethan English is not enough.

Discussion and criticism of the liturgical creativity behind the new Missal:
From 2018: The first Romanist 'Anglican Use' liturgy published, and the crisis in the Ordinariate
Ship of Fools

Psallite Sapienter --
The Secret and the Canon and the Dominus Vobiscum
The Ritual Reason Why
The Ordinariate Mass – Why Eucharistic Prayer II?

There are defenders:
Why Divine Worship: The Missal is so Important
In defence of Divine Worship

And what of the proposed Divine Offices for the Anglican Catholics?

Meanwhile... the Latins are still tinkering with the Liturgy of the Hours. And undoubtedly the old guard is still inveighing against the most recent English translation of the Pauline Missal. They probably would not be happy with proposals to replace the 2011 translation with something more hieratic.

Related:
Two New Chant Projects for the Ordinariates
The Invalidity of Anglican Orders and the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter
The Future of the Roman Liturgy & the Ordinariate Option

Priest Excommunicated, Parish Closed After Criticism of Conciliar Popes by Stephen Wynne

My comment: Is this how the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is being run? Don't use the name of St. Peter to justify ultramontanism/papal maximalism.

The Feast of St. Mary of Egypt

NLM

The Penitential Psalms in Books of Hours

NLM

Why No Teleconfession?

First Things: Why We Can’t Confess Over Zoom by Dominic M. Langevin, O.P.

The sacrament of penance can be described in its signification and effects as a conversation. The sacrament’s goal is to forgive serious postbaptismal sin so that we are restored to friendly and familial conversation with God and the Church. That conversation is itself brought about by a conversation. The ceremony for the sacrament of penance basically involves a discussion between two persons. The penitent confesses to the priest his sorrow for individual past sins, promises to do a satisfactory work, and asks for forgiveness. The priest-confessor assigns a satisfactory work and absolves the penitent, perfecting him in grace. Herein, the priest acts in persona Christi.

Unlike most other sacraments, an inanimate physical object is not needed. There is just a conversation. Some medieval understandings of penance placed the sacramental action exclusively in either the priest-confessor or the penitent. St. Thomas Aquinas clarified that both persons have an essential sacramental role. The Council of Trent confirmed this understanding. One could call the sacrament a “concelebration” between penitent and priest. The sacramental rite involves four specific acts: the penitent’s contrition, confession, and satisfaction, and the priest’s absolution. It is not a monologue, but a dialogue.

This salvific conversation cannot occur through electronic means because the sacrament of penance requires both joint physical presence and live, interpersonal action between the penitent and priest-confessor. The conditions for a full, natural, human conversation must exist.

Updated Sidebar Links

It took me a while to make progress, though the major changes in my journey had been reflected in some updates made a while back. I've added some new links and categories, and will make some more modifications before the weekend is over.