tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post6017598503549696234..comments2024-03-25T17:14:03.066-07:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Fr. Ryan Erlenbush - ReconsiderationsFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40971189942307753192012-08-01T17:17:34.461-07:002012-08-01T17:17:34.461-07:00Father your opinion please. I have been invited on...Father your opinion please. I have been invited on a retreat that involves abstaining from the most Holy Eucharist for 2 days and then receiving at Mass on the third 'to make it like the first time again'. This fills me with dread and puts me off what appears to be an otherwise worthwhile and solid retreat. How could turning down communion with God be of benefit to one in the state of grace? My whole life is centered on daily reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus and the very thought of a day without this supreme gift of love pains me. Your opinion please and any enlightenment from the Fathers or Saints would be morst appreciated. Dominic John PaulDomJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11786302620469277753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72944096651254013712011-09-07T20:41:53.385-07:002011-09-07T20:41:53.385-07:00Milefolio,
The just men before Christ did not go t...Milefolio,<br />The just men before Christ did not go to the limbo of the children but to the limbo of the Fathers ... the two are very different, since the limbo of the Fathers is the fringe of heaven, but the limbo of children is the fringe of hell. <br />Thus, you are quite correct in your intuitions! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34571865677358106742011-09-07T09:19:39.397-07:002011-09-07T09:19:39.397-07:00Dear Father, what about the holy people who lived ...Dear Father, what about the holy people who lived before Christ? Were they also in Limbo before Christ's descent into Hell? I think it would be odd if people like the prophets Abraham, Moses, and Jacob could have talked intimately to God (and even seen God) in their earthly life but were deprived of God's vision in the hereafter. What do you make of this? Thanks.Milefolionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18472663554641728412011-09-03T09:10:59.778-07:002011-09-03T09:10:59.778-07:00@Canis,
Thanks for the comment ... truly, I do try...@Canis,<br />Thanks for the comment ... truly, I do try to soften my comments and articles when possible ... however, I also do not want this blog to show my personality since (as you mentioned) it is far more important to present the truth clearly and concisely.<br /><br />In any case, I do thank you for presuming my good will in a spirit of charity. Also, thank you for your kind encouragement.<br />Many blessings to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39411092627206385402011-09-03T08:11:08.722-07:002011-09-03T08:11:08.722-07:00I am convinced that the somewhat forceful nature o...I am convinced that the somewhat forceful nature of your opinions is a "necessary evil," as a result of this less-than-perfect mode of communication.<br /><br />It's so very important to have serious conversations with individuals, face to face, one on one. This blog is outstanding, but any blog or e-mail is missing body language: tone of voice, facial expressions -- blushing, smiling, gentle looks, harsher looks. Those things are crucial when communicating.<br /><br />In a society of isolation and fast internet communication like ours, it's so very important to be clear quickly. I think we would meet someone slightly different if we came to see you personally, Father.David Urbanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00007466106643467532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70912991526152071362011-09-02T15:25:06.683-07:002011-09-02T15:25:06.683-07:00A Sinner,
Yes, there is certainly some speculation...A Sinner,<br />Yes, there is certainly some speculation here ... however, you are getting dangerously close to denying the old maxim: "Faith seeks understanding".<br /><br />To say "It's a mystery, let's not think about it" would be a terrible mistake.<br /><br />Also, it would be heretical to claim that only those can be saved who have been baptized with water. (the heresy of Fr. Fenney) <br />Therefore, I don't think it is too much speculation to state that it is possible that God saves some who have not been baptized with water.<br /><br /><br />Reading what you write about scholasticism reminds me of a man who looks at a beautiful work of art and thinks it restricted simply because it is within a frame.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79828518661218448962011-09-02T12:11:53.453-07:002011-09-02T12:11:53.453-07:00The traditional Western model seems to build up th...The traditional Western model seems to build up the following tower of speculation:<br /><br />1) It declares that it is "likely" (almost treating it a certainty!) that God saves some who make an act of good will (almost as if they have a right to it at that point, or at least that it could be assumed). <br /><br />2) But, the other side of the coin, then also posits (against empirical evidence, merely based on an abstraction about the nature of the first act of the will) that most [unbaptized] people's first free act is likely of bad rather than good will. Mainly, it seems, to "maintain the appearances" and explain why evangelization and adult baptism is still urgent.<br /><br />3) While, at the same time, positing that it is unlikely that God saves unbaptized infants, and that they go to Limbo.<br /><br />The estimates of "likelihood," however, seem presumptuous, as speaking of what is "likely" in terms of God's behavior seems the height of folly.<br /><br />Specifically, the likelihood of 1 seems based on the dogma that God provides all with sufficient grace for salvation. And there is an assumption that (based on how the situation of the world looks) this must mean some people are being saved extra-sacramentally (say, pre-Columbian Amerindians, etc) because there are some people who never even get the option.<br /><br />However, as I've said above...we have no idea. Perhaps God DOES arrange (even miraculously) for justification by actual water baptism for any adults who respond to the actual preparatory graces (I think even Aquinas discussed this possibility). And/or perhaps all the adults who never even hear the Gospel are people who reject the sufficient grace anyway (and so, in His providence, it didn't matter if God placed them where water baptism would be impossible). There is really no way to call this more or less likely than anything else.<br /><br />The likelihood of 2 is posited, but built on the already flimsy assumptions made to explain the "likelihood" of 1...and seems basically a way to explain why baptism and evangelization are still urgent given the possibility admitted in 1.<br /><br />And then 3's unlikelihood is based merely on a LACK of evidence, or some notion that the extra-baptismal infusion of grace for John the Baptist and Mary was extraordinary. Of course, there are tons of problems with this. For one, they were born before Christ, and justification wasn't tied to baptism then anyway. Two, perhaps what's special about these cases is merely that they received the infusion in the womb. But that doesn't say anything about whether God might, say, infuse grace for all other infants at the moment before death (once any and every chance of accomplishing justification through the Sacrament itself has run out).<br /><br />Indeed, there is no Revelation of this latter possibility. But then, there is no Revelation stating that God's providing of sufficient grace to all implies extra-sacramental salvation of adults either (as I said, it could be that all people who respond DO get water baptism).<br /><br />Really, we just don't know, so the speculation seems based on tenuous assertions of probability from a human perspective. But what seems probable from a human perspective...has little to do with how God actually is likely to act or not act.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72591446113644592032011-09-02T12:06:03.710-07:002011-09-02T12:06:03.710-07:00I'm saying there is a tendency in Western thou...I'm saying there is a tendency in Western thought to a legalism and rationalism to which I think the East is a necessary balance, and that this is in some ways the case par excellence for demonstrating that.<br /><br />To me, these all seem needless speculations and, indeed, to posit what is "likely" and "not likely" without any real way of saying that (this is God we're talking about after all, attempting to "predict" His behavior outside what He has revealed seems like something of a dead-end).<br /><br />To me, it seems enough to say:<br /><br />A) Water baptism is the only Revealed means we have been given for justification (post-Christ, at least) for both the rational and non-rational;<br /><br />B) God's hands are not bound by the Sacraments;<br /><br />C) God truly desires the salvation of all and offers all sufficient grace to be saved.<br /><br />I'm not sure why any speculation beyond this is needed. A tells us what WE have to do with urgency (not being able to presume, before-the-fact, on anything else), B and C allow for hope (though not presumption) after-the-fact for extra-sacramental salvation by non-revealed means. There is an elegance there.<br /><br />On the other hand, the traditional Western take seems convoluted in its desire to explain what God has specifically (and, I assume, deliberately) left unexplained in Revelation, and puts a LOT of emphasis on the rational/non-rational distinction between persons.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60991334740983592992011-09-02T11:10:33.599-07:002011-09-02T11:10:33.599-07:00@A Sinner,
1) The reference to the Orthodox, to th...@A Sinner,<br />1) The reference to the Orthodox, to the "rigidity" of scholasticism, and to semi-pelagianism are all red-herrrings.<br />2) btw, you are accusing both St. Thomas (the common doctor) and St. Augustine (the doctor of grace) of "semi-pelagianism", on the one hand, and "rigidity", on the other...<br /><br />3) Grace cannot move in a rational person without also moving their free will. There is no way for an adult to be saved without a choice of the free will -- and this choice is itself moved by grace.<br /><br />4) Regarding our own memories of childhood ... recall, St. Thomas is speaking about non-baptized children. Also, remember that modern man is far too sentimental about childhood.<br /><br />5) The question of extra-sacramental graces is indeed an open one. It does seem that any "baptism of desire" though would be potentially connected with the sacrament, as tending toward it.<br /><br />6) I hope that you do go and look at the article (at least the quotations from the Summa), since anyone who looks at it honestly would never speak of it so derogetorily ... calling it a "scholastic construction" (as though St. Augustine didn't hold it!) or "absurd prying" ... these are Doctors of the Church, how bout a little respect?<br /><br />Peace. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53456133785389508052011-09-02T11:01:57.699-07:002011-09-02T11:01:57.699-07:00"Regarding whether God always gives at least ..."Regarding whether God always gives at least sufficient grace to all the living ... that is a matter of faith ... we MUST hold to this."<br /><br />I wouldn't deny that at all. <br /><br />What I would question is whether this necessarily implies extra-sacramental justification (perhaps the actual sufficient graces, for those who accept them, DO always lead to water baptism), and also, on the other hand, the seeming limitation of the living to the rational.<br /><br />"for an unbaptized person, his first rational act will either be a mortal sin or a grace-filled turning to the Lord which frees him from original sin."<br /><br />This seems a scholastic construction, though, NOT a dogma of Revelation in any sense of the word, and one which does not even seem to sit well with anyone's memories of their first rational act. <br /><br />Mortal sin requires full knowledge, no? It seems absurd to claim that all these children, upon reaching the age of reason, suddenly commit a mortal sin on account of some abstract consideration of the nature of the self in relation to God that no one actually remembers making.<br /><br />My real objection to this line of though, however, is the seeming semi-pelagianism in it all. I wouldn't deny that adults have reason and free will in a way that infants do no, but I question how much this has to do with the mechanics of salvation.<br /><br />As if in baptized infants it's "all grace" doing the moving but that adults can somehow "earn" salvation through an act of free cooperation with God. Yes, albeit, we'd say the cooperation is itself a grace in some sense (especially in the Thomistic understanding of soteriology and predestination). But there is no particular reason to think this cooperation should be necessary.<br /><br />We know God can simply infuse grace (as in baptized infants), so why He'd make its extra-sacramental reception dependent on an act of the will...raises not only the question of why deny it to non-baptized infants, but also the question of why still require baptism for adults!? <br /><br />If all we need is an act of the will for this extra-sacramental justification...well, it leads to a LOT of mental gymnastics seemingly (about most people's first act being a mortal sin, etc) to justify it.<br /><br />It is at this point which theological speculation beyond the actual contents of Revelation (and, indeed, into matters that seem deliberately non-revealed for a reason)...starts to seem absurd, even prying, in a manner to which I think the Orthodox rightly object.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86799407316334529542011-09-02T10:39:06.394-07:002011-09-02T10:39:06.394-07:00A Sinner,
It is very strange that Dante puts adult...A Sinner,<br />It is very strange that Dante puts adults in the Limbo of Hell ... Certainly, in this regard, he is not following the Fathers or Doctors of the Church.<br />St. Thomas Aquinas (following the Church Fathers) asserts that it is not possible for an adult (or anyone with reason) to have simply original sin without also mortal sin.<br />I wrote about this a while back ... it may help to check out that post: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-children-commit-mortal-sins.html<br />[for an unbaptized person, his first rational act will either be a mortal sin or a grace-filled turning to the Lord which frees him from original sin.]<br /><br />Regarding whether God always gives at least sufficient grace to all the living ... that is a matter of faith ... we MUST hold to this. In fact, to deny the real possibility of salvation to all people (through the gift of sufficient grace) is part of the heresy of Calvin.<br /><br />Consider the teaching of Gaudium et Spes: "since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery" (GS 22)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-69742088245495254512011-09-02T08:55:53.854-07:002011-09-02T08:55:53.854-07:00"This is not because God is bound to offer gr..."This is not because God is bound to offer grace, but because he has promised that he will do so -- he revealed to us that no rational person is damned except for personal mortal sin."<br /><br />Did He? <br /><br />I'm not sure there is a dogma saying that (assuming "damned" includes Limbo). The inclusion of the rational/non-rational distinction of persons (which is later) seems oddly specific to be a point of Revelation.<br /><br />After all, as regards the OLD dispensation at least, Dante (not that I'm claiming he was a theologian, but he does represent significant tradition) imagined Socrates and Plato and Homer in Limbo with the infants.<br /><br />If adults with original-sin-but-not-mortal could be non-heretically imagined as remaining in Limbo from before Christ, I don't see why that changes after Christ (though I know Aquinas, based on what I can glean from the articles on circumcision and pre-Christ justification, might not agree with Dante).<br /><br />"He has promised us that everyone is given grace sufficient unto salvation (but, as far as we can tell, children without reason are not able to be saved without the sacrament of baptism)."<br /><br />Revelation doesn't allow us to presume the extra-sacramental salvation of adults either. The former fact (about sufficient grace) doesn't guarantee extra-sacramental grace either, as it's possible all these sufficient graces have been providentially arranged (for those who accept them) to lead to the reception of actual water baptism. Seems "unlikely" perhaps, but not impossible.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3034922724668937912011-09-01T14:21:35.859-07:002011-09-01T14:21:35.859-07:00I would not consider myself to have satisfied the ...I would not consider myself to have satisfied the requirements for a good confession if I did not do the penance as prescribed by the priest, and in a very timely manner. I had never thought of people who would willfully not do the penance?<br /><br />Most penances today are so light, anyway! The most time consuming I've ever gotten is to say a Rosary. As if that's a chore! Woo-hoo! Another Rosary!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-75034089062445941222011-09-01T11:58:10.446-07:002011-09-01T11:58:10.446-07:00Tomas,
I'm not sure what is still confusing .....Tomas,<br />I'm not sure what is still confusing ...<br /><br />Contrition is required for validity. And contrition implicitly contains a desire to make satisfaction for sin.<br />Hence, explicit and total rejection (knowing and free) of any sense of satisfaction for sin would make the sacrament invalid.<br /><br />Willingness to accept the penance from the priest is required for a worthy reception -- and this penance can be negotiated, if it seems too hard.<br /><br />Please re-read my article above ... it's all there.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-28720854446526097142011-09-01T08:36:55.383-07:002011-09-01T08:36:55.383-07:00Fr. Ryan,
Given your comments above, it is not c...Fr. Ryan, <br /><br />Given your comments above, it is not clear whether the mere implicit desire to make some type of satisfaction is required for validity, or whether the willingness to accept the penance chosen by the priest is also necessary. Could you clarify?<br /><br />TomasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57947074260893386252011-08-31T21:17:27.383-07:002011-08-31T21:17:27.383-07:00George,
Is it malice or ignorance that keeps you ...George, <br />Is it malice or ignorance that keeps you from reading my comments and articles carefully?<br /><br />Let me say it again (quoting from the above article): " I would suppose that, on account of ignorance or confusion or misunderstanding, it has occurred (perhaps even quite often) that a particular penitent has not intended to fulfill the penance of the priest and, because this was not a purposeful and intentional fault, the sacrament has been received in a subjectively worthy manner."<br />Hence, even though it may happen that a penitent does not intend to fulfill the particular penance given by the priest it is quite possible that the sacrament be received not only validly but also worthily (due to ignorance).<br /><br />[so, I think we are in agreement after all]<br /><br />The Catechism of Trent teaches us that true contrition requires the desire to complete some sort of penance:<br />"In the next place, our contrition must be accompanied with a desire of confessing and satisfying for our sins."<br />"Only that satisfaction constitutes part of the Sacrament which, as we have already said, is offered to God for sins at the command of the priest. Furthermore, it must be accompanied by a deliberate and firm purpose carefully to avoid sin for the future."<br />"Such being the nature of satisfaction, it will not be difficult to convince the faithful of the necessity imposed on the penitent of performing works of satisfaction."<br /><br />In fact, if a penitent were totally contrary to any act of satisfaction -- not even desiring to make amends for his sins or to complete any sort of penance whatsoever -- the priest should not grant absolution.<br /><br />Why, after all, do you think it has been called the "Sacrament of Penance"? Perhaps because penance (or at least the desire to make satisfaction) is an integral and necessary part of the sacrament insofar as it is connected (at least implicitly) with contrition?!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-44293287261490986132011-08-31T20:53:36.583-07:002011-08-31T20:53:36.583-07:00@ Fr. Erlenbush 8: 45
No Father, we don't agr...@ Fr. Erlenbush 8: 45<br /><br />No Father, we don't agree. Even if someone refuses and rejects any act of satisfaction - although they should not - this does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. <br /><br />The acceptance of a particular penance assigned by the priest is not absolutely required for validity, nor for the forgiveness of sin, and no magisterial source makes such an assertion.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-21874500152881864142011-08-31T20:45:42.728-07:002011-08-31T20:45:42.728-07:00George (sorry I confused your name earlier),
I com...George (sorry I confused your name earlier),<br />I completely agree with everything you said in your comment of 8:35pm.<br /><br />Good, I'm glad we agree!<br /><br />And, btw, true contrition requires the desire to make satisfaction for our sins (at least an implicit desire). Hence, anyone who explicitly refuses and rejects any act of satisfaction (i.e. penance) does not really have contrition for sin.<br />Now, if contrition is lacking (as you yourself admit) the sacrament will be invalid.<br /><br />"Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction." (CCC 1450, Roman Catechism II,V,21, cf Trent [DS 1673])<br /><br />And our Savior himself said: "Do penance, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!"<br /><br />Without at least the desire to make satisfaction and do penance, there is no true contrition.<br /><br />In any case, I am truly glad that we have come to an agreement! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39502240956324032322011-08-31T20:35:25.572-07:002011-08-31T20:35:25.572-07:00@ Fr .Erlenbush 8:28 p.m
Father,
Contrition and...@ Fr .Erlenbush 8:28 p.m<br /><br /> Father,<br /><br />Contrition and confession with absolution are indispensable for the validity of the Sacrament. But the penance of the penitent is essential only for “the completeness or the fruitfulness of the sign,” not for the validity of the Sacrament. <br /><br />The satisfaction of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, and of the penitent’s contrition and confession are sufficient for a valid Sacrament, even without any acts of penance.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7620265878333778702011-08-31T20:28:41.229-07:002011-08-31T20:28:41.229-07:00Anon (5:34pm) [presumably Gregory],
1) please reme...Anon (5:34pm) [presumably Gregory],<br />1) please remember to use a pseudonym<br />2) I wish you would read my comment more carefully - since you still clearly do not recognize that my whole claim was never about whether the penance is "made" or "completed" by the penitent, but on the quality of the contrition (which requires some desire to make satisfaction).<br /><br />3) To be very clear: There are many many many cases in which the Sacrament of Reconciliation has been and will be valid even though the penitent has not in fact completed the penance.<br /><br />The sacrament is always valid before the penance is completed, so long as the priest says the proper words with the proper intention and the penitent has contrition and makes an integral confession (to the best of his ability, as the Church herself teaches). <br />My point is that contrition itself at least implicitly contains a desire to make satisfaction (i.e. to do some sort of penance) for our sins. Without a desire (at least an implicit desire) to make satisfaction, we do not have contrition and therefore we do not have a valid sacrament.<br /><br />Sorry Gregory, your comment shows that you are making no effort to read my comments or articles in a spirit of charity ... in fact, you are very clearly misrepresenting what I have expressly stated.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53751944494835145972011-08-31T17:34:34.988-07:002011-08-31T17:34:34.988-07:00@ Fr Elenbush 5:27 pm
''I never said that...@ Fr Elenbush 5:27 pm<br /><br />''I never said that confession was invalid if a penitent simply omitted to complete his penance.<br />What I had said was that the penance would be invalid if the penitent refused to do any form of penance whatsoever and did not even have any intention of making satisfaction for his sins.''<br /><br />Sorry Father, this comment clearly shows you are still not clear on the fact that Sacrament is valid even if no penance is made by the penitent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-1365204511981243882011-08-31T17:27:49.434-07:002011-08-31T17:27:49.434-07:00George, I'm not sure you if you intentionally ...George, I'm not sure you if you intentionally misrepresenting my earlier article or if you are truly mistaken. <br />[in any case, it is not particularly charitable to say that I was "just plain wrong", especially since you don't even understand what I said in the first place]<br /><br />I never said that confession was invalid if a penitent simply omitted to complete his penance.<br />What I had said was that the penance would be invalid if the penitent refused to do any form of penance whatsoever and did not even have any intention of making satisfaction for his sins.<br /><br />It must be recalled, however, that contrition implies also the desire to make satisfaction -- hence, if a penitent lacks any desire at all to complete any sort of penance whatsoever (i.e. he explicitly refuses to complete any satisfaction at all), then he lacks even imperfect contrition.<br />This would be a very serious fault indeed -- it could invalidate the sacrament, through compromising the requirement of (at least imperfect) contrition.<br /><br />All the best to you. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-90638830894440778462011-08-31T17:18:29.172-07:002011-08-31T17:18:29.172-07:00Fr Ryan,
Regarding you reconsideration concerning...Fr Ryan,<br /><br />Regarding you reconsideration concerning the validity of the Sacement of Reconciliation, it is good of you to have retracted yourself, because, as you say, it was misleading. Of course, a penitent should strive to make his penance, but saying the Sacrament was invalid it he omitted it was just plain wrong. All the best.<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84790675925327438202011-08-31T16:40:46.593-07:002011-08-31T16:40:46.593-07:00@Fr. Burke and Bernardus,
If Fr. Martin and I can ...@Fr. Burke and Bernardus,<br />If Fr. Martin and I can be a help to getting the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to be more well known, then NTM is a grand success! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-59954215986604142042011-08-31T16:29:07.670-07:002011-08-31T16:29:07.670-07:00Dear Father,
I for one value your blog. As one who...Dear Father,<br />I for one value your blog. As one who ended formal theology when I was ordained and try to keep up with theology as best I can. I find your blog a great help.You have especially helped me in learning more about the Fathers. It might seem strange to you but in seminary apart from St Augustine we hardly touched on the Fathers. Since then I have tried to read as mush as possible their writings. <br />Keep up the good work and be assured of my prayers.Fr. Gabriel Burke C.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16781282465881743182noreply@blogger.com