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
Friday, April 03, 2020
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.
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.
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.
Adrian Vermeule on the Constitution
(via MoJ)
The Atlantic: Beyond Originalism by Adrian Vermeule
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.
Vermeule is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard? And he doesn't know that the Constitution is for the Federal Government and its powers are limited for a reason? Nor does he realize that the common good that is proper to the political community is not the same as the good of a federation because of the scale involved. In addition to being an integralist, Vermeule's a statist and a nationalist with respect to the Constitution. Those who disagree with him (I've included some reactions below), do so not because they disagree with the scope of power he is advocating for the Federal Government, but because of his favoring a confessional state or some other moral or religious principle. They would have a strong centralized government, so long as it promotes their ideology, and they too could talk about ruling for the common good as well, it's just that they have a different (and erroneous, though in their minds they think it correct and humane) opinion about how that common good is achieved and preserved.
Let us do away with the pretense that the Constitution is even legally relevant with respect to preserving the order the Founders originally envisaged. That order disappeared a long time ago. What are we to do now? Do we do what we can to preserve observance of the moral law under the cover of the Constitution, interpreting it just so that for the sake of appearances, everything that is legislated is constitutional? Perhaps we would not disagree with this pragmatic approach so much, even if it involves a sort of "noble lie" or legal fiction that our observance of the Constitution is traditional. At least Vermeule admits that it is not. Our biggest disagreement remains - Vermeule looks to the central government as a solution; we look to decentralization and all that requires as the solution.
Doess the Anglo-American tradition recognize the Natural Law? It may depend upon its adherents, but I would think that the tradition would acknowledge that the Natural Law is embodied in the Common Law tradition; otherwise individual laws that are unjust are also invalid, and would or should have been nullified. Nonetheless, so long as we live in the shell of a federation of (sovereign) states we are tied to the Constitution, until that is replaced or some other agreement between the states is reached. Vermeule needs to stop imaging what power is able to achieve and consider instead what the limits of power are, after he has spent some time living in a true political community. Until that happens, his opinion (and that of integralists in general) is irrelevant as it has no basis in a true experience of community. It is just another version of received dogma with respect to political life.
A "liberal tradition"? Perhaps some liberals wanted to restrict it. Maybe some oligarchs wanted to restrict it as well. But some originalists and paleoconservatives also wanted to restrict the reading of the general-welfare clause as well, because the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government, to which it is limited. Again, what sort of professor of constitutional law is this? One whose family background (his family name is Dutch) is tied to New England WASPs (Yankees), and a product of Harvard for both undergrad and law school. (A legacy admission? His mother was a member of the faculty for Radcliffe.) It's no wonder he is a Yankee Nationalist with respect to his understanding of the Constitution. He was also a clerk for Antonin Scalia -- was Scalia ignorant of the purpose and meaning of the Constitution as well, or were these lessons never given to his clerk, or never requested by his clerk? He converted to Roman Catholicism in 2016, and that grace is not going to remedy any defects in his opinions about the Constitution.
Some reactions:
The New Republic: The Emerging Right-Wing Vision of Constitutional Authoritarianism
No surprise here, Vermeule is receiving support from other Latin integralists: Adrian Vermeule’s Brilliant Essay on Common Good Constitutionalism
Even some "conservatives" are sympathetic to his argument:
A critique: Rejecting Vermeule’s Right-Wing Dworkinian Vision by Lee Strang
NRO: Adrian Vermeule's 'Common -Good Constitutionalism': No Alternative to Originalism
The Problem with Catholic Integralism in One Tweet By Andrew T. Walker
The Atlantic: Beyond Originalism by Adrian Vermeule
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.
But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.
Vermeule is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard? And he doesn't know that the Constitution is for the Federal Government and its powers are limited for a reason? Nor does he realize that the common good that is proper to the political community is not the same as the good of a federation because of the scale involved. In addition to being an integralist, Vermeule's a statist and a nationalist with respect to the Constitution. Those who disagree with him (I've included some reactions below), do so not because they disagree with the scope of power he is advocating for the Federal Government, but because of his favoring a confessional state or some other moral or religious principle. They would have a strong centralized government, so long as it promotes their ideology, and they too could talk about ruling for the common good as well, it's just that they have a different (and erroneous, though in their minds they think it correct and humane) opinion about how that common good is achieved and preserved.
Assured of this, conservatives ought to turn their attention to developing new and more robust alternatives to both originalism and left-liberal constitutionalism. It is now possible to imagine a substantive moral constitutionalism that, although not enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution, is also liberated from the left-liberals’ overarching sacramental narrative, the relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy. Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not “conservative” at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.
This approach should take as its starting point substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution. These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society.
Let us do away with the pretense that the Constitution is even legally relevant with respect to preserving the order the Founders originally envisaged. That order disappeared a long time ago. What are we to do now? Do we do what we can to preserve observance of the moral law under the cover of the Constitution, interpreting it just so that for the sake of appearances, everything that is legislated is constitutional? Perhaps we would not disagree with this pragmatic approach so much, even if it involves a sort of "noble lie" or legal fiction that our observance of the Constitution is traditional. At least Vermeule admits that it is not. Our biggest disagreement remains - Vermeule looks to the central government as a solution; we look to decentralization and all that requires as the solution.
Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium—the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems—and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.
Doess the Anglo-American tradition recognize the Natural Law? It may depend upon its adherents, but I would think that the tradition would acknowledge that the Natural Law is embodied in the Common Law tradition; otherwise individual laws that are unjust are also invalid, and would or should have been nullified. Nonetheless, so long as we live in the shell of a federation of (sovereign) states we are tied to the Constitution, until that is replaced or some other agreement between the states is reached. Vermeule needs to stop imaging what power is able to achieve and consider instead what the limits of power are, after he has spent some time living in a true political community. Until that happens, his opinion (and that of integralists in general) is irrelevant as it has no basis in a true experience of community. It is just another version of received dogma with respect to political life.
How, if at all, are these principles to be grounded in the constitutional text and in conventional legal sources? The sweeping generalities and famous ambiguities of our Constitution, an old and in places obscure document, afford ample space for substantive moral readings that promote peace, justice, abundance, health, and safety, by means of just authority, hierarchy, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress “power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism (despite a liberal tradition of reading the clause in a cramped fashion), as is the Constitution’s preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice. Constitutional words such as freedom and liberty need not be given libertarian readings; instead they can be read in light of a better conception of liberty as the natural human capacity to act in accordance with reasoned morality.
A "liberal tradition"? Perhaps some liberals wanted to restrict it. Maybe some oligarchs wanted to restrict it as well. But some originalists and paleoconservatives also wanted to restrict the reading of the general-welfare clause as well, because the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government, to which it is limited. Again, what sort of professor of constitutional law is this? One whose family background (his family name is Dutch) is tied to New England WASPs (Yankees), and a product of Harvard for both undergrad and law school. (A legacy admission? His mother was a member of the faculty for Radcliffe.) It's no wonder he is a Yankee Nationalist with respect to his understanding of the Constitution. He was also a clerk for Antonin Scalia -- was Scalia ignorant of the purpose and meaning of the Constitution as well, or were these lessons never given to his clerk, or never requested by his clerk? He converted to Roman Catholicism in 2016, and that grace is not going to remedy any defects in his opinions about the Constitution.
"Originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation," Adrian Vermeule writes: https://t.co/kqEQ4HD8Ql— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) March 31, 2020
Some reactions:
“Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them.”— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 31, 2020
That’s certainly one way of putting it. https://t.co/4JNkZrEXwP
Originalism had a good run. Time for common-good constitutionalism, reason of state, illiberal legalism and direct, authoritative rule for the common good, says Adrian Vermeule at the Atlantic https://t.co/sLHB9HNMS9— Gladden Pappin (@gjpappin) March 31, 2020
To add even more context, Adrian Vermeule has stated he believes liberal democracy is demonically inspired. That’s the meaning of the Biblical quotes discussing “liberalism’s true identity” in the piece below. Did the editors at The Atlantic miss that? https://t.co/CLGHDeY3S2— Mark R. Yzaguirre (@markyzaguirre) March 31, 2020
The New Republic: The Emerging Right-Wing Vision of Constitutional Authoritarianism
No surprise here, Vermeule is receiving support from other Latin integralists: Adrian Vermeule’s Brilliant Essay on Common Good Constitutionalism
Even some "conservatives" are sympathetic to his argument:
Leave it to Adrian Vermeule to make everyone in the broader legal academy, commentariat, and profession alike lose their collective minds even while he’s off Twitter for Lent.— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) March 31, 2020
Good for @TheAtlantic for publishing such a bold argument. https://t.co/1QrIXZ99K2
A critique: Rejecting Vermeule’s Right-Wing Dworkinian Vision by Lee Strang
NRO: Adrian Vermeule's 'Common -Good Constitutionalism': No Alternative to Originalism
The Problem with Catholic Integralism in One Tweet By Andrew T. Walker
Thursday, April 02, 2020
They Attend Byzantine Catholic Churches
But are they Byzantine in their thinking? Matt Fradd and Trent Horn:
full episode
And here is that podcast by Trent Horn: #250 – Why I attend a Byzantine Catholic parish (with my pastor!)
Of course the papacy is the key controversy, and it is not clear to me that Trent Horn has left behind Latin theology. Applying the model of the civil government of Israel, the monarchy and the vizier (vicar), to the understanding of the Church is not straightforward if the power of the keys given to St. Peter is passed on to all of the bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. Who is the pastor of the Church? The bishop of the local church, if we accept the monoepiscopate as a fixed norm. (And it is not clear to me that it is so.) But if the Church Universal is a communion of bishops and their flocks, is there a place for a primus? A leader or a facilitator and spokesman? A leader may be a facilitator and spokesman, but one can be a facilitator and spokesman without being a leader, in the sense of having authority over those one represents as a spokesman. There is no historical evidence that St. Peter exercised primacy as it is defined by the Latin Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II or claimed by various bishops of Rome over the past 1500 years. So if the primus episcopus is overstepping his boundaries and attempting to lord his primacy over the church, what recourse or sanctions do other bishops have? What else is there besides warning the bishop of Rome that he is in danger of cutting himself off from the communion in charity that is proper to the Church Universal? If a Latin thinks that there is no recourse whatsoever, and that other bishops must just suffer or bear it though not necessarily obeying commands the bishop of Rome has no authority to give, he still thinks like a Latin.
And Trent Horn's latest podcast: St. Peter: Pope or Nope?
Downloadable versions of the two podcasts can be found at player.fm and podbay.
Matt Fradd did do a subsequent interview with Fr. Michael O'Loughlin, which I will have to finish.
full episode
Yes, I’m a parishioner at a Byzantine parish. Next Tuesday I will have my pastor come on the podcast to talk about it.
— Trent Horn (@Trent_Horn) January 5, 2020
And here is that podcast by Trent Horn: #250 – Why I attend a Byzantine Catholic parish (with my pastor!)
Of course the papacy is the key controversy, and it is not clear to me that Trent Horn has left behind Latin theology. Applying the model of the civil government of Israel, the monarchy and the vizier (vicar), to the understanding of the Church is not straightforward if the power of the keys given to St. Peter is passed on to all of the bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. Who is the pastor of the Church? The bishop of the local church, if we accept the monoepiscopate as a fixed norm. (And it is not clear to me that it is so.) But if the Church Universal is a communion of bishops and their flocks, is there a place for a primus? A leader or a facilitator and spokesman? A leader may be a facilitator and spokesman, but one can be a facilitator and spokesman without being a leader, in the sense of having authority over those one represents as a spokesman. There is no historical evidence that St. Peter exercised primacy as it is defined by the Latin Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II or claimed by various bishops of Rome over the past 1500 years. So if the primus episcopus is overstepping his boundaries and attempting to lord his primacy over the church, what recourse or sanctions do other bishops have? What else is there besides warning the bishop of Rome that he is in danger of cutting himself off from the communion in charity that is proper to the Church Universal? If a Latin thinks that there is no recourse whatsoever, and that other bishops must just suffer or bear it though not necessarily obeying commands the bishop of Rome has no authority to give, he still thinks like a Latin.
And Trent Horn's latest podcast: St. Peter: Pope or Nope?
Downloadable versions of the two podcasts can be found at player.fm and podbay.
Matt Fradd did do a subsequent interview with Fr. Michael O'Loughlin, which I will have to finish.
"Jesus Wept"
A Latin understanding of the passions of Christ...
First Things: Meditating on COVID-19 by Hans Boersma
An interpretation of Christ's weeping in line with St. Maximos the Confessor?
Merit? Participation? Or something else?
What about assuming our nature to heal human passions? Does Christ feel the loss of Lazarus on an emotional level? Is it possible for him to do so without experiencing sin? Or can he weep only out of love for us, and not for Lazarus?
First Things: Meditating on COVID-19 by Hans Boersma
The fifth Sunday of Lent is traditionally known as Passion Sunday. During the two weeks between Passion Sunday and Easter, we are called upon to meditate on Jesus’s suffering and death. For the most part, our preoccupation with suffering and death leaves Jesus out, so as to focus strictly on ourselves.
An interpretation of Christ's weeping in line with St. Maximos the Confessor?
We do well to attend to Jesus’s tears, for it is only by meditation upon his tears that we are able to process our own. Why does Jesus weep? The question is pressing because Jesus cannot possibly be weeping in the same way that Martha, Mary, and the bystanders are weeping. The narrative doesn’t allow us to think that Jesus is mourning the loss of his friend. He has travelled to Bethany with the precise aim of raising Lazarus from the dead (11:4, 11). Hippolytus of Rome adroitly observes: “He wept but did not mourn.”
Why, then, does Jesus weep? He weeps because he meditates upon our passion. Just as we are called to “weep with those who weep” (Rom.15:12), so Jesus weeps with those who weep. (In fact, Saint Augustine suggests that the reason Jesus weeps here is to teach us to weep; this must at least be part of the picture.) Jesus weeps with Martha and Mary, with the Jewish bystanders, and with a world struggling with illness, suffering, and death.
We should not miss the intensity of Jesus’s emotional upheaval. He was “deeply moved,” suggest many recent translations—a hopeless sentimentalizing of his passion. Jesus’s grief is mixed with furious anger and indignation. The Greek term here, embrimaomai, is reminiscent of a bristling, snorting stallion.
What upsets Jesus so? Is it Martha and Mary’s confounded reproach, “Lord, if you had been here . . .” (11:21, 32)? Is it the bystanders’ unwarranted censure that he should have kept Lazarus from dying (11:37)? Is it the grief and pain that he reads in all of their faces? Is it the havoc that illness and death cause in the lives of the people he loves? It is all of these. Jesus meditates on our passion and weeps.
Merit? Participation? Or something else?
Reflect for a moment on the incomprehensible depth of these words, “Jesus wept.” His passion deliberately and fully exposes him to the virus we carry. When Jesus weeps, he opens himself up to our illness; he takes on our passion; he enters our grief. We meditate on Jesus’s tears, but comprehend them we cannot. Why not? Their flow contains nothing less than the pooled passion of the entire human race.
The biblical lessons and the Psalm appointed for Passion Sunday remind us of the depth of Jesus’s tears. They depict the valley of the dry bones—the mass grave of exiles (Ezek. 37). They cry out from the depths (de profundis) of the psalmist’s iniquities (Ps. 130). And (depending on the assigned reading in your church), they speak of slavery to sin (Rom. 6). When Jesus weeps at Lazarus’s graveside, he weeps for all of this.
Still, Jesus’s tears are not just tears of lament. I suspect they are tears of joy at the same time. Dry bones come to life when the Spirit of God breathes on them. Iniquities are forgiven when the Lord sends redemption to Israel. And slaves of sin become slaves of righteousness when in faith and baptism we are united to Christ Jesus. Each of the readings offers resurrection hope beyond passion and death. Jesus’s tears are a promise that grief of illness and death will be overcome by joy of life eternal.
The church fathers were fond of saying that whatever our Lord did in his incarnation, he did “for our sake.” His weeping is no exception. Jesus weeps “on account of the people standing round” (11:42). That doesn’t mean his tears are fake. Quite the contrary, as we have seen. But it does mean that Jesus’s tears are infinitely dissimilar to ours. They are not tears of impotence. They are the tears of God. And when God weeps, we may be sure our passion is about to yield to resurrection.
What about assuming our nature to heal human passions? Does Christ feel the loss of Lazarus on an emotional level? Is it possible for him to do so without experiencing sin? Or can he weep only out of love for us, and not for Lazarus?
An Academic Rebuttal to Cochini Is Required
Latins mounting a defense of the claim that priestly celibacy is a norm of apostolic origin continually and consistently refer to the book by Christian Cochini, the English translation of which is published by Ignatius Press, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. But it is not at all clear to Byzantines and others that Concini has the historical evidence necessary to establish this claim.
Here is another Latin apologia: The Charism of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Frederick L. Miller, STD
Here is another Latin apologia: The Charism of Priestly Celibacy by Fr. Frederick L. Miller, STD
Wednesday, April 01, 2020
πνευματικὰς
I was thinking about πνευματικὰς in 1 Peter 2:5, translated as "spiritual" in the RSV CE.
According to Strong's Concordance:
4152 pneumatikós (an adjective, derived from 4151 /pneúma, "spirit") – spiritual; relating to the realm of spirit, i.e. the invisible sphere in which the Holy Spirit imparts faith, reveals Christ, etc.
In how many instances in the Greek text might the translation "of the Spirit" or "pertaining to the Spirit" or "Spiritual" be warranted? Is it warranted here?
According to Strong's Concordance:
4152 pneumatikós (an adjective, derived from 4151 /pneúma, "spirit") – spiritual; relating to the realm of spirit, i.e. the invisible sphere in which the Holy Spirit imparts faith, reveals Christ, etc.
In how many instances in the Greek text might the translation "of the Spirit" or "pertaining to the Spirit" or "Spiritual" be warranted? Is it warranted here?
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Does Orthodox Wiki Reflect the Standard Orthodox View?
Globally? In the English-speaking world?
The OrthodoxWiki entry on Consecration of a bishop:
Is this view the result of Western influence? Or can it be found within the Byzantine tradition itself? How far back does it go?
In the entry for "Presbyter" it is written:
Is this the standard Orthodox understanding of the history of the presbyterate and of the New Testament on the relation between the presbyters and the episkopoi? Unfortunately no sources are given for these points in the article. Are there any historical sources that explain the separation of the two orders and the justification for the presbyterate deriving the power to exercise their office from the bishop?
The OrthodoxWiki entry on Consecration of a bishop:
The consecration of a bishop is the process during which a candidate for the episcopate receives the fullness of the grace of the priesthood through the Sacred Mystery of ordination by the laying of hands (in the Greek: χειροτονία, Cheirotonia) in succession from the Holy Apostles. The office of bishop is the highest clerical rank in the Orthodox Church. While some bishops may receive titles such as Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop, all bishops are equal and the titles are administrative ranks and marks of dignity and honor. At his consecration, a bishop receives grace not only to perform the Sacred Mysteries but also to bestow the grace of ordination on others.
Is this view the result of Western influence? Or can it be found within the Byzantine tradition itself? How far back does it go?
In the entry for "Presbyter" it is written:
The word 'presbyter' is, in the Bible, a synonym for bishop (Gr: επίσκοπος - episkopos), referring to a leader in local Church congregations. However, since at least the second century, it has been understood as distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest. Its literal meaning in Greek (Gr: πρεσβύτερος - presbyteros) is "elder."And later in the article:
The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Is this the standard Orthodox understanding of the history of the presbyterate and of the New Testament on the relation between the presbyters and the episkopoi? Unfortunately no sources are given for these points in the article. Are there any historical sources that explain the separation of the two orders and the justification for the presbyterate deriving the power to exercise their office from the bishop?
A Defense That Actually Highlights the Problem
CWR: The shepherds we need—or the shepherds I want? by Fr. Charles Fox
Bishops are vital to the Church’s life and mission, they face incredibly difficult pastoral situations every day, and they deserve to be treated with justice and mercy, just like anyone else.
The problem? Latin bishops are selected by the bishop of Rome, usually with the assistance of the papal nuncio to the country in question, who solicits suggestions from bishops and others of that country. Do any of the people who are involved in this election process have sufficient personal knowledge of the candidates that if one of the candidates were accused of sexual misconduct, they could state that they believe he is innocent, even if the allegations are "credible"? And we must also consider that transferring bishops from one see to another happens regularly in the patriarchate of Rome, and outsiders are often installed in the see of a diocese. Let us be clear, the naming of bishops by Rome is not a practice that dates back to Sts. Peter and Paul. (And of course the bishop of Rome should not be naming or even "confirming" non-Latin bishops. He should only acknowledge and perhaps congratulate non-Latin bishops upon their election and consecration/installation.)
What should be happening instead? The local Church should choosing its bishop, whether the naming of candidates be by a select few, the presbyteral synod, or with the involvement of the Christian people as well. At the very least they should be able to affirm or reject candidates based on personal familiarity with the character of the candidate? Should the election of one candidate from the many be by lot? Or by voting? These details do not matter at the moment, as we are nowhere near to restoring this ancient custom to the Latin churches. But we should be making some sort of movement to that custom where possible. If it is not possible because the scale of the local Church is too large, then that needs to be changed. If it is not possible because the people are not sufficiently catechized and cannot judge accurately the character of their presbyters and prominent laymen, then maybe the juridical status of the local Church should be abolished and replaced with a mission territory.
This is not to say that any of the other patriarchates or national churches or what have you are completely free of this problem. But is there any jurisdiction which is as centralized as the patriarchate of Rome in this regard?
Bishops are vital to the Church’s life and mission, they face incredibly difficult pastoral situations every day, and they deserve to be treated with justice and mercy, just like anyone else.
Just one difficulty with applying this secular approach to criticism of the bishops is that the bishops did not choose their positions of authority. They were chosen. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (Jn 15:16), Our Lord told His first bishops at the Last Supper.
But isn’t it true that ambition helped propel some of our bishops down the path towards the episcopacy? In all probability, yes. But this admission does not change the more fundamental truth that the Church, in the person of the Pope, chooses priests to become bishops. And so it is unjust to think of public criticism as “part of the package” of the life they have chosen for themselves.
Criticism will always come to every leader, but the critic, especially one who purports to be a devout Catholic, has his own moral responsibility to make sure that both the substance and the form of his criticism are appropriately just and merciful.
The problem? Latin bishops are selected by the bishop of Rome, usually with the assistance of the papal nuncio to the country in question, who solicits suggestions from bishops and others of that country. Do any of the people who are involved in this election process have sufficient personal knowledge of the candidates that if one of the candidates were accused of sexual misconduct, they could state that they believe he is innocent, even if the allegations are "credible"? And we must also consider that transferring bishops from one see to another happens regularly in the patriarchate of Rome, and outsiders are often installed in the see of a diocese. Let us be clear, the naming of bishops by Rome is not a practice that dates back to Sts. Peter and Paul. (And of course the bishop of Rome should not be naming or even "confirming" non-Latin bishops. He should only acknowledge and perhaps congratulate non-Latin bishops upon their election and consecration/installation.)
What should be happening instead? The local Church should choosing its bishop, whether the naming of candidates be by a select few, the presbyteral synod, or with the involvement of the Christian people as well. At the very least they should be able to affirm or reject candidates based on personal familiarity with the character of the candidate? Should the election of one candidate from the many be by lot? Or by voting? These details do not matter at the moment, as we are nowhere near to restoring this ancient custom to the Latin churches. But we should be making some sort of movement to that custom where possible. If it is not possible because the scale of the local Church is too large, then that needs to be changed. If it is not possible because the people are not sufficiently catechized and cannot judge accurately the character of their presbyters and prominent laymen, then maybe the juridical status of the local Church should be abolished and replaced with a mission territory.
This is not to say that any of the other patriarchates or national churches or what have you are completely free of this problem. But is there any jurisdiction which is as centralized as the patriarchate of Rome in this regard?
Monday, March 30, 2020
A Meditation by Dom Pius de Hemptinne
He was a Benedictine (1879–1907), a disciple of Dom Columba Marmion.
NLM
A Latin view, with an emphasis almost solely on our Lord's death and no mention of the Resurrection, and of course the key word is sacrifice, but there is no definition of that word to be found here at least:
NLM
A Latin view, with an emphasis almost solely on our Lord's death and no mention of the Resurrection, and of course the key word is sacrifice, but there is no definition of that word to be found here at least:
THE DEATH OF A GOD, dying for the salvation of men, is the central point in the history of mankind. All ages bear witness to and converge towards it: the preceding centuries point to its coming, the others are destined to harvest its fruits.
The death of Christ is the centre of history, and also the centre of the life of each man in particular. In the eyes of God every man will be great in proportion as he takes part in that deed; for the only true and eternal dignity is that belonging to the divine Priest. The degree of each one’s holiness will be in exact proportion as he participates in that bloody immolation. For the Lamb of God alone is holy.
But although Jesus Christ the divine High Priest appeared only once on earth, to offer up His great sacrifice on Calvary; yet, every day He appears in the person of each one of His ministers, to renew His sacrifice on the altar. In every altar, then, Calvary is seen: every altar becomes an august place, the Holy of holies, the source of all holiness. Thither all must go to seek Life, and thither all must continually return, as to the source of God’s mercies.
A True Believer?
Following upon this post; some videos which reveal Charles Taylor's attitudes towards multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration.
Latin "Integralism"
Tied to a notion of the Papal [ordinary] Magisterium which can make sense only from a maximalist view of the papacy.
The Josias: Coronavirus and Public Masses: An Integralist Perspective by Felix de St. Vincent
The Josias: Coronavirus and Public Masses: An Integralist Perspective by Felix de St. Vincent
In the integralist understanding, the civil authority is subject to the law of the ecclesiastical authority. In Immortale dei, Leo XIII reminds us that nature and reason confirm, “we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will” (Par. 6).
Speculation on Prelapsarian Human Nature
How far can one take it? And why should one take St. Maximos the Confessor as THE expression of Tradition on these points?
Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?
If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me.
Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?
If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me.
Saint Maximus taught that sadness is in fact a blameworthy passion that is the result of the fall—a stain of original sin. In the Questions to Thalassius he writes that after the Fall:[T[he great and innumerable mob of passions was introduced into human life and corrupted it. Thus our life became filled with much groaning…If, on the other hand, our condition of self-love is distressed by pain, then we give birth to anger, envy, hate, enmity, remembrance of past injuries, reproach, slander, oppression, sorrow, hopelessness, despair, the denial of providence, torpor, negligence, despondency, discouragement, faint-heartedness, grief out of season, weeping and wailing, dejection, lamentation, envy, jealousy, spite, and whatever else is produced by our inner disposition when it is deprived of occasions for pleasure. (1.2.15)Now, many may contend with Maximus’ teaching by saying Jesus “groaned” (John 11:34) and “wept” (John 11:35). We must be careful to read these passages in a Christologically orthodox way.We know that Jesus “was tempted in every way,” but we also know that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13). So, we must understand He was “tempted in every way, WITHOUT SIN” (the Greek does not necessarily include the word “but.”)In other words, He was tempted in every blameless, without sin. sort of way—hunger, thirst, pain, privation—but not by sinful temptations such as sex, avarice, and the like. I have covered in detail elsewhere that Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed blameless passions, which were in fact not inherent to His sinless human nature as by nature flesh that is sinless, like Adam’s in paradise, experiences none of these things. However, Jesus did voluntarily experience these things as it was naturally possible for Him to. Adamite (prelapsarian) flesh is not glorified flesh—it can contain fallen aspects naturally because the fall did really occur in the prelapsarian flesh, turning it into postlapsarian flesh. Prelapsarian flesh tends towards immortality, but it is not truly immortal until it is glorified. Glorified flesh cannot experience the fall. So, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and others (if they exist) with resurrected bodies cannot fall into sin like Adam and Eve, because they have glorified bodies. This, for them, would be an impossibility.This being said, we must be careful not to assume Jesus weeps for the same reason we grieve. We often grieve because we feel an intense, sorrow due to personal loss or some sort of self-love. Jesus did not experience this sort of sorrow, which Maximus states is from the passions.Weeping that arises from the blameless passions is much different. For example, weeping from laughter is not the same as grief. Weeping from hitting one’s thumb with a hammer also is not the same as grief. Weeping out of compassion and empathy is also not the same as grief.When Jesus wept, this does not mean he was weeping from grief—which clearly the
Theotokos did during her son’s crucifixion.As a brief aside, while grief and weeping from such are blameworthy passions, only the consent of the will to despondency is sin. So, our Orthodox icons of the Theotokos and Saint John weeping at the crucifixion is not a terrible example of sin—this would be absurd. It is a demonstration of God’s people, with postlapsarian flesh, experiencing grief as we all do. They were not despondent and so did not sin. Saint Basil (Letter 260, Par 9) and Saint Maximus (Life of the Virgin, Par 53) both speak of the Theotokos having instant healing from precisely this predicament.The preceding being said, how did Jesus weep? First, let’s plainly look at what the Scriptures indicate. In John 11:31 there are “Jews” consoling Mary and Martha. It is not clear whether they were professional mourners (Jer 9:17), but they wept with Mary and Martha (John 11:33) akin to those wailing for a ruler’s dead daughter in Matt 9:23. Clearly, community-mourning was some sort of social custom in Judea. Contextually, we must understand that Jesus was joining in this social custom, which He was obviously accustomed to. What he was not doing was grieving the death of Lazarus, as He was calm four days beforehand being fully cognizant of its occurrence. Clearly, Jesus was showing pity for Mary and those there, joining in the community mourning.
Tradivox, Again
Tradivox: Where Latin tradition of the second millenium is identified with the Tradition of the Church Universal.
1P5: Tradivox: Bringing Solid Catechisms to the Hungry Faithful
1P5: Tradivox: Bringing Solid Catechisms to the Hungry Faithful
Which catechism is the best?
We get asked this constantly, and the answer really depends on how you measure. A few certainly stand out. The Roman Catechism remains the most authoritative. There are the priceless historical works of Saints Canisius and Bellarmine. The excellent little catechism of Pope St. Pius X must be mentioned, and the extensively reprinted Baltimore Catechism comes to mind for many Americans. These would be a few of the more significant texts in the genre.
Are these your own personal favorites?
Actually, no. My personal favorites are some of the more obscure texts, mostly for devotional reasons. I’ve grown to deeply love the Catholic martyrs and confessors from the early years of the Anglican schism, so there are several catechisms “baptized in blood” from that period that are dear to me — Vaux, Turberville, Doulye, and White, to name a few. The later, more compendious works of Bp. George Hay and Fr. Michael Müller are some other favorites.
The catechisms must all have fascinating histories.
Yes, there are so many stories. We try to give some of that backdrop in the preface of each volume, hoping to assist readers in experiencing a greater spiritual kinship with our Catholic forebears. I recall one man sharing with us that after reading Volume 1 of our Index, he not only learned things about the Faith that he had never heard (after years of Catholic schooling), but was also deeply moved by reading with awareness that these texts were very much written “by martyrs, for martyrs.”
Sunday, March 29, 2020
The Eucharist Makes the Church
Public Orthodoxy: The Church without the Eucharist Is No Longer the Church
A (telephone) conversation with Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas (March 23, 2020)
(also published here)
"I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy. However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and watch the Liturgy."
Related:
Eucharistic Living without the Eucharist by Nicholas Denysenko
Do the Sacraments Prevent Illness? A Survey of Liturgical Sources by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
No Danger of Disease from Holy Communion, Scientific Studies Say by Fr. Joseph Gleason
A (telephone) conversation with Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas (March 23, 2020)
(also published here)
"I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy. However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and watch the Liturgy."
Related:
Eucharistic Living without the Eucharist by Nicholas Denysenko
Do the Sacraments Prevent Illness? A Survey of Liturgical Sources by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
No Danger of Disease from Holy Communion, Scientific Studies Say by Fr. Joseph Gleason
"Transubstantiation" in the Byzantine Tradition?
Eclectic Orthodoxy: Transubstantiation: Maybe Dositheos Got It Right by the Very Rev. Christiaan Kappes, S.L.D., Ph.L., Ph.D.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Binitarian?
Fr. Hunwicke: OLD MASS: NEW DECREES: Prefaces (1) and OLD MASS NEW DECREES: PREFACES (2)
From the second part:
Setting aside the question of the prefaces -- Will the prayers of the Roman rite ever develop to the point that the Holy Spirit is included? One cannot force a patriarchate to "properly receive" the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, but can one oppose such a development in the name of "tradition" which is really just ideological conservatism?
From the second part:
DISCUSSION.
In my unhumble opinion, the sensible and real choices are either to argue
(1) that the CDF should be asked to reconsider the matter of the Advent and Pre-Lent Prefaces; or
(2) that the Roman Rite, with its severely and primitive binitarian instincts, does not favour the imposition of a Trinitarian character on most of the Sundays of the year, so we should go back to the pre-1759 situation and use simply the Common Preface on Sundays through Advent and Pre-Lent; or
(3) that Sunday is by nature Trinitarian; as long ago as the pre-Gregorian exemplar which Moelcaich the scribe of the Stowe Missal copied, the preface has had a Trinitarian character ... rather as it does in the Byzantine Rite. So ... back to Clement XIII.
Setting aside the question of the prefaces -- Will the prayers of the Roman rite ever develop to the point that the Holy Spirit is included? One cannot force a patriarchate to "properly receive" the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, but can one oppose such a development in the name of "tradition" which is really just ideological conservatism?
Fr Maximos Constans on the Spiritual Life
Eclectic Orthodoxy: Archimandrite Maximos Constas on the Spiritual Life
Part 1: Discoursing on the Passions
Part 4: The Buried Seed
Part 6: Taking Custody of our Thoughts
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.
1 Peter 2:4-5 RSV CE
1 Peter 2:9 RSV CE
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.
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:
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.
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).
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?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.”
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.
Is von Balthasar an Universalist?
Latin traditionalists hold his universalism against von Balthasar and Ressourcement in general. Have Thomists moved beyond that?
CWR Dispatch: Did Hans Urs von Balthasar teach that everyone will certainly be saved? by Mark Brumley
Whatever Balthasar’s position is, and whether or not it is correct, it isn’t universalism.
CWR Dispatch: Did Hans Urs von Balthasar teach that everyone will certainly be saved? by Mark Brumley
Whatever Balthasar’s position is, and whether or not it is correct, it isn’t universalism.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Greeks Pushing for Deaconesses
Public Orthodoxy: Deaconesses: An Orthodox Institution Untheologically Blocked by Petros Vassiliadis
Should we call this Modernism? It certainly is a questionable take on the interpretation of Scripture.
The necessity of an immediate restoration of the order of deaconesses, the history of the decision to hold the symposium at this particular moment, as well as its expectations, were presented at the opening session. The first and primary reason for convening the symposium was to encourage the traditional access of women to the sacramental “diaconal” priesthood. Unlike the general issue and demand for women ordination into episcopacy and the “hierurgic” priesthood, the symposium aimed at highlighting the diaconal character of the Christian faith, and not the redistribution of power within the Church. As Prof. Dn. John Chryssavgis underlined, we should perceive and practice “the diaconal ministry not as a stepping-stone to the priesthood or episcopate, but as a symbol of the vocation of every Christian (male and female) to serve. It is (he is convinced) today more than ever before, harder to be a deacon in the Orthodox Church than it is to be a priest or a bishop. Unfortunately, centuries of hardened clericalism, ecclesiastical illiteracy, and blatant disregard for the diaconate have rendered it almost impossible for people in our church—clergy and laity—to appreciate how the diaconate should inform every aspect of pastoral leadership and church ministry.…If we do not understand the diaconia, we cannot understand the other ranks of priesthood…even the role of the laity in the Church…The authentic image of the Church that we should be seeking—in our minds as in our ministry—is that of a dinner table, not that of a corporate ladder. The Church is not a pyramid, where all attention and authority are turned toward the summit. Instead, we should imagine the Church as a sacrament, where the primary and essential focus is the celebration of the Eucharist.”Chryssavgis is making the "diaconate" the model for understanding Christian service, though Christian service is not fully explained here, nor how it is different from the life of agape. Often in English translations of Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 there is an interpolation of "others" which is not present in the Greek, so that it reads "[the Son of Man came...] to serve others." This is not warranted by the Greek original. Whom does the Son serve? Not us, but God, the Father. Is the "diaconate" a kind of service to God? Yes. Are Christians to be servants of God? Yes. Does that mean the diaconate does not need to be reformed? No. But do we need to restore the order of deaconesses? To me it does not seem obvious that this is necessary, except perhaps in female religious communities.
Except for extreme cases, Orthodox women are never entrusted, as in the Early Church, with leading roles in the Church’s ministry, the only exception being—especially in the East—the order of deaconesses. The gender ambivalence of ritual is revealed by the dichotomy between theology and practice. While the Orthodox liturgy includes female saint veneration and reputes the Theotokos as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim”—that is above the world of the celestial beings—down on earth women are excluded from joining the superior clergy to the rank of deaconesses.
The Old Testament, of course, exemplifies patriarchal bias in many ways, notably in the metaphor of woman coming out of man (Gen 1:22). It is inescapable, however, that this was corrected in the New Testament, by the explicit Pauline statement that “when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Gal 4:4). God becoming incarnate “from a woman” is a reversal of woman “coming out of man.”
Should we call this Modernism? It certainly is a questionable take on the interpretation of Scripture.
A Latin Suggestion
CNA/CWR: Can’t go to confession during coronavirus? Consider an ‘act of perfect contrition’
If it arises from "a love by which God is loved above all else," is that not charity? If one already has charity back, infused by God, then what need for sacramental confession, except to fulfill an obligation or to ease one's misgivings about not going to confession when he should or to "make sure" that one has been forgiven? After all, a mortal sin destroys charity; charity is completely removed from someone who has committed a moral sin. It cannot be restored by the sinner's own power, but by God alone.
I don't think Latins would disagree that an act of perfect contrition, if such a thing exists in relation to a sinner who seeks the sacrament of confession but it is unavailable, can be only a gift from God and cannot be presumed, and it is not identical to attrition or regret or human repentance.
See this Latin explanation: Soteriology: Implicit Perfect Contrition.
Instead of speaking of a sinner's contrition or attrition and attempting to define such things, should we focus instead on the sinner being moved by the Holy Spirit and cooperating with the Holy Spirit? That may leave the pastoral question of what we are to do if we are repentant after committing a mortal sin, but I think that presuming that we have perfect contrition is too much. Would it not be better to encourage the sinner to avail himself of confession when it becomes available and to trust in the mercy of God? After all, even according to Latin moral theologians, the sinner cannot have moral certainty that his perfect contrition is truly perfect contrition, and he should seek confession. Theological speculation about perfect contrition cannot substitute for the moral certainty a sinner needs when he is judging himself and his own acts.
Father Pius Pietrzyk, OP, chair of pastoral studies at St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, California, told CNA that “perfect contrition” is sorrow for one's sins based upon love for God, which includes the firm resolution not to commit them any more.
When contrition arises from “a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called ‘perfect,’” the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.
The catechism explains that perfect contrition “remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.”
Imperfect contrition, also known as attrition— sorrow for one’s sins based upon fear of the punishment of Hell— is sufficient for a priest to absolve you in the confessional, but not enough to obtain the forgiveness of mortal sin without sacramental confession to a priest, the catechism explains.
If it arises from "a love by which God is loved above all else," is that not charity? If one already has charity back, infused by God, then what need for sacramental confession, except to fulfill an obligation or to ease one's misgivings about not going to confession when he should or to "make sure" that one has been forgiven? After all, a mortal sin destroys charity; charity is completely removed from someone who has committed a moral sin. It cannot be restored by the sinner's own power, but by God alone.
I don't think Latins would disagree that an act of perfect contrition, if such a thing exists in relation to a sinner who seeks the sacrament of confession but it is unavailable, can be only a gift from God and cannot be presumed, and it is not identical to attrition or regret or human repentance.
See this Latin explanation: Soteriology: Implicit Perfect Contrition.
Instead of speaking of a sinner's contrition or attrition and attempting to define such things, should we focus instead on the sinner being moved by the Holy Spirit and cooperating with the Holy Spirit? That may leave the pastoral question of what we are to do if we are repentant after committing a mortal sin, but I think that presuming that we have perfect contrition is too much. Would it not be better to encourage the sinner to avail himself of confession when it becomes available and to trust in the mercy of God? After all, even according to Latin moral theologians, the sinner cannot have moral certainty that his perfect contrition is truly perfect contrition, and he should seek confession. Theological speculation about perfect contrition cannot substitute for the moral certainty a sinner needs when he is judging himself and his own acts.
Reconstructing Democracy
First Things: Two Cheers for Charles Taylor and Friends by Carl R. Trueman
Reconstructing Democracy: How Citizens Are Building from the Ground Up by Charles Taylor, Patrizia Nanz, and Madeleine Beaubien Taylor
Taylor holds on to leftists delusions about the conditions/requirements of communal life. Academics need to get out into the real world.
Reconstructing Democracy: How Citizens Are Building from the Ground Up by Charles Taylor, Patrizia Nanz, and Madeleine Beaubien Taylor
Taylor holds on to leftists delusions about the conditions/requirements of communal life. Academics need to get out into the real world.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)