Tell me about it. I find it simply astonishing that the government is doing nothing about these drones all over the place. Sounds like a massive inside job to me.
"This act is also only conceivable if the future sacrificial event in God’s eternity, which knows no temporal extension, always already exists in its transfigured form and is made present in the Upper Room through Christ by virtue of the mediating power of the Holy Spirit."
Um... why?
Why not instead: This act is conceivable as the beginning of the great sacrificial event, which occurs at the central focal point of all human history (a discrete point in time); its reality, presence, power is effected in that moment by the perfect divine power of Christ himself as God-man, changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood?
I think what Vigilius is trying to do is articulate the metaphysical condition(s) for Christ doing something at the Last Supper that is, in fact, accomplished the day after. Think of it in terms of the way the Sacrifice of Christ makes possible the grace of the Immaculate Conception. It is only if the future sacrificial event in God’s eternity already in some sense exists that Our Lady can be freed from original sin.
That seems to me a false articulation of the metaphysics of grace. Metaphysically there is no reason to tie the working of grace to the cross. That it is so tied is metaphysically contingent, deriving from the free election of God. The sacrifice of Christ does not make *possible* the grace of the Immaculate Conception (or the justification of Abraham, etc.); rather, the sacrifice of Christ is (made) the *means* of the grace of the Immaculate Conception (etc.). The objection then would be, how can the sacrifice be the means if it has not happened yet? And I suggest the answer is, because it is the means assigned by God (in accordance with the inscrutable workings of divine Providence which have been revealed to us in the course of history), and not a metaphysically necessary means. (It is necessary, i.e., becomes a condition for grace, only insofar as God has declared it necessary, just as the various elements of the ceremonial laws governing (liturgical) sacrifice are (or were) necessary only insofar as God has declared them necessary.)
The question seems to be, what does Vigilius mean when he refers to the 'transfigured form' of the 'sacrificial event' which is coeternal with God? If he just means the eternally perfect will, knowledge, power of God, fine; but I think he should be concerned to avoid giving the impression that God needs, in addition to these, to provide himself with a kind of magic wand to wield in order to overcome the ordinary temporal laws governing causation, before it is metaphysically(!) possible for him to confer grace.
These are deep waters. Vigilius may have in mind - without being a Balthasarian at all - that the eternal relation of the Son to the Father is something of an archetype of all that the Son does in time, including His kenosis and self-offering. The Incarnation is a reflection, an extension into time, of what is always-already true. This is implied in Aquinas's view that the temporal economy is an extension of the Trinitarian relations (the same holding for the Holy Ghost).
Okay, I don't see any objection to that. But I wonder now, why the sacrifice at the institution of Eucharist can't just exist in its own integrity. Why suppose at all, as Vigilius does, that it is metaphysically dependent on the future sacrificial event? As a ritual it anticipates the cross, clearly; but in itself (in its own metaphysical temporal-historical being) it is a true and perfect sacrifice, offered in exactly the same way the Eucharist now is offered as a true and perfect sacrifice (but now with the ritual aspect also of a memorial).
Also, as a traditional Roman, I'm not thrilled with Vigilius's nod to the imposition into the Roman liturgy of the (really unnecessary, essentially extraneous) Eastern epiclesis theology: "by virtue of the mediating power of the Holy Spirit." What do you make of that?
I think a lot of this is well explained by Dom Anscar Vonier OSB in "Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist." But I wouldn't be able to sum it all up without basically writing a new article!
As St Thomas would say, of course the Holy Spirit is always involved, since all of God's actions "ad extra" are common to the Three Persons. There's more of a question of appropriation - the Eastern tradition appropriates transubstantiation to the Holy Spirit, while the West appropriates it to the all-powerful Father. But they are not contradictory.
Wouldn't you know it, I actually had Vonier's book in mind when I was commenting here. (I can't guarantee he'd say what I'm saying, but I think he would.)
They are not contradictory: true. But the question is more, why the unnecessary imposition onto the Roman Rite of the Eastern tradition, as if our own tradition all these years had been inadequate? I'm no expert, but don't you think a restoration of the traditional Roman Rite would include dropping the Holy Spirit epiclesis? That's just been my assumption.
I had a short article come out today on St. Lucy that was released too late to be included in this roundup. Here it is:
"What Might It Be Like to Have Lucy, Not Luce, as a Mascot?"
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2024/12/what-might-it-be-like-to-have-lucy-not.html
Loved the boy bishop! Can't wait to show my students! 7 boys are altar server training for the Latin Mass.
Saint Nicholas, WonderWorker and Bishop of MYRA in Lycia, pray for us! 🇹🇷 ⛪ 🎅🏽 🇷🇺 🌍 🇨🇵 🕯️📿 ☦️ 🦌 🎄 🎶
Unity Mercy Truth and Love,
Grace and peace to you! 🔔
You sure that wasn't a drone in the last picture that you posted? ;)
Tell me about it. I find it simply astonishing that the government is doing nothing about these drones all over the place. Sounds like a massive inside job to me.
The government is fumbling the handling of the situation.
It just represents the failure of our bureaucracies in responding to real time issues.
Hopefully the DOGE will straighten things out.
I'm of the mind that these are simply a secret government drone program testing new technologies, aka, area 51 stuff.
No aliens, no foreign interference. Just the government clumsily dealing with a situation they inadvertently created.
Yes, that seems right to me.
"This act is also only conceivable if the future sacrificial event in God’s eternity, which knows no temporal extension, always already exists in its transfigured form and is made present in the Upper Room through Christ by virtue of the mediating power of the Holy Spirit."
Um... why?
Why not instead: This act is conceivable as the beginning of the great sacrificial event, which occurs at the central focal point of all human history (a discrete point in time); its reality, presence, power is effected in that moment by the perfect divine power of Christ himself as God-man, changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood?
I think what Vigilius is trying to do is articulate the metaphysical condition(s) for Christ doing something at the Last Supper that is, in fact, accomplished the day after. Think of it in terms of the way the Sacrifice of Christ makes possible the grace of the Immaculate Conception. It is only if the future sacrificial event in God’s eternity already in some sense exists that Our Lady can be freed from original sin.
That seems to me a false articulation of the metaphysics of grace. Metaphysically there is no reason to tie the working of grace to the cross. That it is so tied is metaphysically contingent, deriving from the free election of God. The sacrifice of Christ does not make *possible* the grace of the Immaculate Conception (or the justification of Abraham, etc.); rather, the sacrifice of Christ is (made) the *means* of the grace of the Immaculate Conception (etc.). The objection then would be, how can the sacrifice be the means if it has not happened yet? And I suggest the answer is, because it is the means assigned by God (in accordance with the inscrutable workings of divine Providence which have been revealed to us in the course of history), and not a metaphysically necessary means. (It is necessary, i.e., becomes a condition for grace, only insofar as God has declared it necessary, just as the various elements of the ceremonial laws governing (liturgical) sacrifice are (or were) necessary only insofar as God has declared them necessary.)
The question seems to be, what does Vigilius mean when he refers to the 'transfigured form' of the 'sacrificial event' which is coeternal with God? If he just means the eternally perfect will, knowledge, power of God, fine; but I think he should be concerned to avoid giving the impression that God needs, in addition to these, to provide himself with a kind of magic wand to wield in order to overcome the ordinary temporal laws governing causation, before it is metaphysically(!) possible for him to confer grace.
These are deep waters. Vigilius may have in mind - without being a Balthasarian at all - that the eternal relation of the Son to the Father is something of an archetype of all that the Son does in time, including His kenosis and self-offering. The Incarnation is a reflection, an extension into time, of what is always-already true. This is implied in Aquinas's view that the temporal economy is an extension of the Trinitarian relations (the same holding for the Holy Ghost).
Okay, I don't see any objection to that. But I wonder now, why the sacrifice at the institution of Eucharist can't just exist in its own integrity. Why suppose at all, as Vigilius does, that it is metaphysically dependent on the future sacrificial event? As a ritual it anticipates the cross, clearly; but in itself (in its own metaphysical temporal-historical being) it is a true and perfect sacrifice, offered in exactly the same way the Eucharist now is offered as a true and perfect sacrifice (but now with the ritual aspect also of a memorial).
Also, as a traditional Roman, I'm not thrilled with Vigilius's nod to the imposition into the Roman liturgy of the (really unnecessary, essentially extraneous) Eastern epiclesis theology: "by virtue of the mediating power of the Holy Spirit." What do you make of that?
I think a lot of this is well explained by Dom Anscar Vonier OSB in "Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist." But I wouldn't be able to sum it all up without basically writing a new article!
As St Thomas would say, of course the Holy Spirit is always involved, since all of God's actions "ad extra" are common to the Three Persons. There's more of a question of appropriation - the Eastern tradition appropriates transubstantiation to the Holy Spirit, while the West appropriates it to the all-powerful Father. But they are not contradictory.
Wouldn't you know it, I actually had Vonier's book in mind when I was commenting here. (I can't guarantee he'd say what I'm saying, but I think he would.)
They are not contradictory: true. But the question is more, why the unnecessary imposition onto the Roman Rite of the Eastern tradition, as if our own tradition all these years had been inadequate? I'm no expert, but don't you think a restoration of the traditional Roman Rite would include dropping the Holy Spirit epiclesis? That's just been my assumption.
Thank you, Dr K. I agree with you about Robert Keim's substack. It's pretty amazing. And I was also struck by the quote you provided.
Outstanding 💫 ✍🏼 overview,
Thank you, Glory to God for all things!
Σοφία Χάρης Αγάπη Δόξα 🔥☦️⛪🌐🕯️📿🕊️
Onward to Bethlehem....✨ 🌴 🐪 👑
Santa Lucia, pray for us! 👁️👁️