 |
|
Sharmans, medicine-men, Aboriginal elders, oracles, ecstatics, and priests: From ancient times to the present day, virtually all societies, from the high civilizations of the Aztecs and Egyptians to the tribal groups of New Guinean and Aboriginal societies, there have appeared individuals or groups to whom have been ascribed pre-eminent and unique roles in the formalities of mediation, representation, intercession and interpretation, and the liturgical events by means of which humankind has always sought to make sense of the world of external reality. Christian communities too comprise members having distinct roles to play.
St. Paul makes the analogy of the individual members of the Church with the individual parts of the human body: there are eyes, which are not ears, which are not arms and legs; but all are necessary to constitute the whole (I Cor 12:12-31). One of the distinctive roles within the body of the Church is that of ‘priest’. In view of concerns about the role the priest in the Church of modernity and post-modernity, it is felt appropriate to comment on the theology of the sacrament of orders in the light of developments in sacramental theology, liturgical change, historical events, and current issues.
The discussion is confined to the history of ‘orders’ within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and further, primarily to the tradition of Catholicism. The order of discussion is as follows:
I) Historical events;
II) Developments in sacramental theology;
III) Liturgical change;
IV) Current issues; and
V) Conclusions.
In this opening paragraph, the word ‘priesthood’ and ‘orders’ have been used synonymously. Clarification will be attempted below.
I) Historical events: One of the key integrators of Israel`s identity is the experience of being a people of the Covenant, of having a relationship with the One God, the Creator, in the form of a Promise made to a `chosen people` which involved everlasting fidelity on the part of God, and in return, certain observances on the part of Israel. God`s covenant with Abraham is recorded in Genesis 15:18 as follows: “That day, Yahweh made a Covenant with Abram in these terms: To your descendents I give this land, from the wadi of Egypt to the Great River”. Of note here is that in Genesis 15, the author known as `J` places emphasis on the Covenant as gift; whereas a second account of the Covenant recorded by the author known as `P` in Chapter 17 places emphasis on humankind`s obligations as a result of having entered into a covenant. The patriarchal practice of entering into a personal covenant was not uncommon at the time; but the consequence was that the God was then known by the name of the one with whom the covenant was made: hence, `the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob`.
It is noteworthy that at the time of Abraham, a priesthood was already in existence, as indicated in Gen Ch. 14, 17-18: “When Abram came back… the king of Sodom came to meet him… Melchizedek king of Salem brought bread an wine; he was a priest of God the most high”. (Italics mine). The significance of this meeting, during which Abram was given a blessing, as well as bread and wine, and during which Abram gave a tenth of his wealth to Melchizedek was both political and religious, in that Melchizedek as king was also a priest of the god of the city of Salem, who was called El Elyon. As for the symbolism of the bread and wine in this context, it is known that bread was considered part of the staple diet in both Old Testament and New Testament times. Bread made of wheat was a luxury, as was, no doubt, wine. It is possible that the bread and wine referred to here prefigure the reference in Luke 14:15 to “[eating] bread in the kingdom of God”; or to the unity of Christians in one bread and one body (1 Cor 10:17).
In the present-day conferral of the sacrament of Orders, or at least in former times when Latin hymns were sung in liturgical ceremonies, one of the most noble of hymns, following the conferral of Orders, contained the following words: `Tu es sacerdos, in aeternum, secundum ordinum Melchizedek` [`You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek` Translation mine]. It is notable that the reference to the priest Melchizadek is as modern as it is ancient: The reference is not “… according to the order of Abraham”; or even according to the order of Jesus the Christ”: the present-day sacrament of Orders retains this ancient reference. This is considered to have significance, and is possibly one of the reasons why McBrien has the following to say of the sacrament of Holy Orders: “This is perhaps the most difficult sacrament of all to treat. It is exceedingly complicated in its origin and in the development of terminology”. [1] (Italics mine).
The prieshood of the New Covenant – the Covenant made between God and Christ, on behalf of human kind – is best understood by making reference to the priesthood of the Old Covenant, in the light of the Old Testament. The offering of sacrifice was a priestly function, usually performed by patriarchs, the heads of tribal groups, or the heads of families. In addition to sacrificial offering (Deut 33:10), two other functions were associated with the priesthood of old: the discernment of God`s will (c.f. the urim and thummin, Ex 28:30), and teaching (Deut 33:10).
McKenzie`s synthesis of the priesthood of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is worth citing in full: [2] … Christ, unlike priests of the line of Aaron, is priest by divine appointment and not by descent. But Abraham, the carnal ancestor of Aaron, recognized the priesthood of Melchizedek by giving him tithes and receiving his blessing; therefore the priesthood descended from Abraham had to await the greater priesthood which its ancestor had recognized. This priesthood is that of Christ”.
A well known pattern which occurred during the Mosaic period of Israel`s salvation history was:
i) The initiation of a covenant: “I have seen the miserable state of my people in Egypt… I mean to deliver them… I shall be with you.” (Ex 3: 7-12);
ii) Divine revelation: “I Am who I Am” (Ex 3: 14). [The significance of the name giving here is not that the essence of God will be fully known to the Israelites henceforth, but for invocation by this name: “This is my name for all time; and by this name I shall be invoked for all generations to come” (Exodus 3: 15)];
iii) Sacrificial offering: “Moses puts all the commands of Yahweh into writing… and built an altar… with the twelve standing-stones for the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he directed certain young Israelites to offer holocausts and to immolate bullocks to Yahweh as communion sacrifices. Half of the blood Moses took up and put into basins, and the other half he cast on the altar. … Then Moses cast it towards the people. This, he said, is the blood of the Covenant that Yahweh has made with you…. They ate and they drank”. (Exodus, 24: 4-11);
iv) Apostasy: “Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, Go down now, because the people whom you brought out of Egypt have apostasised”. (Exodus 32: 7); and the Renewal of the Covenant: “But Moses pleaded with Yahweh his God (Italics mine) … So Yahweh relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened”. (Exodus 32: 11-14).
The pattern of the establishment of a covenantal relationship, apostasy, intercession and immolation, and final reconciliation is a pattern which appears frequently throughout the history of the Old Testament. The role of `intercession and immolation` is attributed to monolithic figures, quite possibly acting as precursors of Jesus Christ, the High Priest. [3]
In addition to individual intermediaries between God and humankind, however, one of the tribes of Israel was singled out to be `a priestly tribe`: the tribe of Levi to which Moses and Aaron belonged. (Ex 2:1 ff). The members of this tribe assumed a cultic role in the carrying out of the three fundamental priestly duties mentioned above: sacrifice, discernment of God`s will, and teaching. The charismatic nature of the `priesthood of individuals` and the `professional nature of the priesthood of members of a designated tribe` which permeate Old Testament salvation history give rise to an important question: Was the priesthood of Melchizadek – or of Abraham, or Moses, or the sons of the tribe of Levi – a sacramental priesthood? In other words, did the priesthood of the Old Testament simply point to, or announce the reality of covenant; or did it actually embody the reality? In the context of the understanding of Cooke [4] and Lawler [5], was the priesthood of the Old testament a `special sign`, understood as a `symbol`, or to use another word, a `sacrament`?
We consider first, that it is difficult to ascertain whether the priesthood of the Old Testament was sacramental; and second, that it does not really matter whether the term `sacrament` as such is used, for it is considered that a sacramental experience was encountered. What does matter is that the Covenant `myth`, which Cooke calls `a narrative which is grounded in and which communicates a reality`, gave rise to a profoundly integrating experience, at both the individual and communal level, which simultaneously gave an irrevocable identity to a group of people based on a `hermeneutic of experience`. Following Cooke`s line of thought: “Religion is meant to supply a hermeneutic of human experience, as a matter of fact to be the hermeneutic that leads us to discover the ultimate meaning of being human, of being that particular human each of us is.” [6]
Tracey refers to this process in terms of `analogical imagination` [7]. Our interpretation is that both grace, the gift of God`s very self to his people, and sacramentality, the instrumentality for all creation for revealing God were integral to the gathering and calling of God`s chosen people. Schillebeeckx [8] has used the notion of `encounter` within the school of modern philosophy known as phenomenology to clarify the difference between the encounter of the peoples of both the Old and the New Covenant. Sacraments, for Schillebeeckx, are not things, but moments of personal encounter which must take place on the level of something visible and embodied; phenomenologically.
In this brief sketch of historical events in Old Testament history, it is clear that in a patrilineal, male-prominent society in which the role of women was far from being on an equal footing, an historical tradition began to emerge, giving a `gender bias` to the role of a priest – a topic which Sarah Butler addresses, and which will be taken up in section IV) of the present paper, under the theme of `current issues`.
II) Developments in sacramental theology: The starting point of this section is the Apostolic period of the New Testament. Straddling a profoundly important and complex period of theological foment, it will attempt to touch on discussion relevant to the sub-heading, right up until the dawn of the Second Vatican Council.McBrien`s succinctness serves well here: “Not until the early Christians concluded that they were indeed part of a radically new movement distinct from Judaism was there a basis for the development of a separate Christian priesthood.” [9]
For the infant Apostolic Church, however, there was no `blueprint`: A well structured model of the priesthood was already highly developed in Judaism, and the infant Church emerged with that institution firmly in place. Initially, the functions or titles which were recognized by the infant church were: The Twelve; apostles; prophets and teachers; and others designated to specific ministries or services. As Donahue [10] indicates, while there is `important evidence` for the offices of episcopos, and of diakonos in the service of the church, the office of `priesthood` is not mentioned in the New Testament, except in relation to, and exclusively to Jesus as `high priest` (Hebrews 2:19; 4:14-15) and to the Christian community as a whole (1 Peter 2: 4-5). In the Apostolic church, priority seems to have been placed not so much on the person, as to the ministry of the person.
The priesthood cannot be considered in isolation from the eucharist. While there is no question that the church regards the eucharist to have been instituted as a sacrament at the Last Supper, the question of when the priesthood became a sacrament is rather less clear. It is as if the eucharist is more central to the life of the community of the New Covenant than were the ritual actions of the priestly caste and individuals of the Old Covenant. John Shea [11] summarizes `the perennial Christian strategy` as follows: “ i) Gather the folks; ii) Break the bread; iii) Tell the stories”. Drawing from the insights of Bernard Cooke, Szafranski draws attention to the relative priority of the eucharist and orders: “The sacramentally effective action of the eucharist begins as soon as people start coming together to share this action – and not only when the ordained appears on the scene”.[12]
My own deliberations lead me to believe that this was the thinking of the community of faith in the early church: Someone – a baptized believer in good standing in the community of `the saints` – would have been either nominated or approved by the gathering to preside over the eucharist, on account of the integrity of their life – their Christian `praxis` as it were; but it may not have been necessary that such a person be an institutionally designated person. Hence I now have a question in my mind as to whether the Last Supper, at which time the eucharist became a designated sacrament, was the time at which orders became designated as a sacramentas well – as is generally understood to be the case. My interpretation of the eucharistic practice in the early church suggests that the eucharist, which Rahner calls `the sacrament of the heart of Christ`, was primordially a gathering, at which bread was broken `in memory`, and at which stories were told. It seems plausible that the `story telling` may have been done by a gifted person other than the one who broke the bread. In the very early years of the Apostolic church, when the gatherings were of such small numbers, it may have been that the Apostles were the ones who actually broke the bread; but as the number of Christians grew, and the church moved through the centuries with diversification and multiplication of the local communities, it became physically necessary to supplement the number of those who were gifted with the breaking of bread and the telling of stories. It would seem that a logistical demand required the multiplication of such people. [It is from this need that I understand the offices of episcopos, and of diakonos to have emerged: For the perpetuation of `the perennial Christian strategy`]. During this period – the pre-Constantine period of ecclesial development, the `model` of priesthood which existed has been described as a `presbyteral` model, with the word presbyteroi referring to `the elders`: “The priest was primarily the adviser and assistant to the episkopos.”. [13]
At least as late as this point in church history, the three roles of episcopos, presbyteroi and diakonos are now in place in a collegiate sense of ordo, a sense which McBrien says “… gradually evaporated, only to be rediscovered at Vatican II”. [14] In summary, however, the matter of the fact is that there is no clear evidence or record of how a certain individual, other than the episkopos, came to preside at the eucharist, or whether this was a permanent or occasional ministry. What may be presumed is that the individual who presided did so with the consent of the community; and that this `consent` may have been tantamount to ordination. Following the Edict of Constantine, early in the fourth century, many civil privileges and dispensations were bestowed on the individuals who belonged to the now formalized institution of the priesthood – a practice which McBrien suggests had much in common with the Old Testament practice of the bestowal of temporal favours on the institutional priesthood. From the sixth to the twelfth centuries, `with the Germanization of Christianity`, there was a fusion of priestly and royal powers in the person of the priest. With tax-collecting being one of the duties assigned, the loyalties of priests were more so to their feudal lords than to their Bishops. While bishops were assigned a `princely` status, the priesthood became more of a caste-like state, especially following the imposition of celibacy in the late twelfth century for priests in the Latin rite. [15] A key issue driving the Reformation was the proposal that there is no ministerial power existing in the church as a result of Holy Orders: the priesthood is a characteristic of all believers; and that since Christ`s death and expiation cannot and need not be repeated, there is no need for a cultic priesthood. In the Doctrine of the Sacrament of Order, (Session XXIII, 1563), the Council of Trent asserted that:
i) the priesthood is indeed conferred as one of the seven sacraments;
ii) that the Mass is a true sacrifice; and
iii) that there is a true hierarchy of Orders in the church, consisting of bishops, priests and deacons. Further, it was asserted that the authority and power of these offices are not dependent on the call of the community; an apparent reversal of the practice in the Apostolic and early church. Much of the identity of the priesthood, and the manner of the education of seminarians and candidates for the priesthood resulted from the Counter-Reformation, and remained in place, as a cultic and sacramental institution, right up until the Second Vatican Council.
III) Liturgical change: As has been mentioned above, Donahue has described the pre-Constantinian model of the priesthood as being `presbyteryl`; i.e. the priest was the advisor and assistant to the episkopos. In medieval and post-Tridentine theology, the `model` of the priest is described by using a `sacerdotal` model, in which the priest was primarily the sacral person who “represented” Christ at the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Second Vatican Council and subsequent discussions, the model of the priest is presented in terms of a `ministerial` model. [16] A major shift in understanding has been from the person of the priest to the mission of the priest. Though a rather lengthy direct quote, the concise nature of Donahue`s summation of the insights of the Second Vatican Council, as documented in the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) serves to present the Council`s understanding of the priesthood. “The council describes both the `vertical` and `horizontal` dimensions of priesthood. Priests are “living ministers of Christ Jesus” (PO, no 2), who `represent Christ` (PO, no 12), “consecrated to preach the gospel, shepherd the faithful, and celebrate divine worship” (Lumen Gentium, nos 28a; 53)”. [17]
This change in emphasis, away from the person of the priest to the ministry of the priest – a reversal of seventeenth-century thinking, is surely suggestive of a return to the emphasis which was seen in the liturgical life of the early church – `the perennial Christian strategy` as John Shea summarized it: “ i) Gather the folks; ii) Break the bread; iii) Tell the stories”. [18] Concerning liturgical change in the actual rites of ordination, McBrien illustrates how Episcopal consecration places an emphasis on the apostolic succession of bishops. Further, it emphasizes the duties and functions of a bishop, downplaying the cultic elements which had encrusted themselves around the office. The liturgy of priestly ordination emphasises the collegiality which exists between the bishop and the priest. “Significantly, the Old Testament flavour is preserved in the consecratory prayer”. [19] The liturgy of ordination to the diaconate remains essentially unchanged, but is clear in its prescription that the diaconate is a permanent grade of the hierarchy.
IV) Current issues: It is approximately forty years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, which served well as a compass, for correcting deviations from the course of the church, and charting new headings. However the Council was in some senses only a beginning, and many issues remain to be addressed. New questions have arisen, along with new uncertainties. More than thirteen years ago, in an article entitled `The One Who Presides at Eucharist`, Fr. Richard Szanfranski described his parish – a university campus with a four-person pastoral team: a Dominican sister, a married man, and two ordained priests. [20] Taking a position which is borderline close to that of Reformation thought, Szanfranski probes the nature of community worship and the priesthood we all share in baptism, confirmation and eucharist, and then goes on to pose the following question: “If the community gathers in the name of Jesus, gives thanks and shares bread and wine, is the gathering “eucharist,” even without an ordained priest present?”[21] He goes on to describe how the four-person pastoral team in his university parish function: “The four of us take turns preparing and presiding at communal penance services and other major liturgical celebrations, such as the Good Friday liturgy. As a result, the parish has come to see all four of us as the pastors”. [22]
Szanfranski`s passionate concern is that without the eucharist, we have no life as a believers, for the eucharist is the summit and source of the whole Christian life. In the event that with the continuing decline in the number of ordained priests, Christian life is endangered because of the requirement that an ordained priest must preside over the eucharist, we should look to the early church to seek guidance. “The early church community believed it was gifted by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-11). Each member had a function. This basic belief is the root of our being able to say that baptism is the primary sacrament of ministry in the church. Basic to any real understanding of specific full or part time, professional or amateur ministries within the faith community is the feeling -- not just the intellectual grasp but the feeling -- that the whole church is ministerial, is ministry. It exists to be the servant of the world God loves. The ministerial church, as Schillebeeckx points out, must be understood as rooted in the baptism in the Spirit of all Christians”. [23]
It is important to note however that one of the primary mandates of the ordained priest is the preaching of the Gospel based on an authentic witness of life. As priests are remined in Evangelii Nuntiandi [On Evangelization in the Modern World]: “It is often said nowadays that the present century thirsts for authenticity. Especially in regard to young people it is said that they have a horror of the artificial or false and that they are searching above all for truth and honesty. These `signs of the times` should find us vigilant. Either tacitly or aloud – but always forcefully – we are being asked: Do you really believe what you are proclaiming? Do you live what you believe? Do you really preach what you live? The witness of life has become more than ever an essential condition for effectiveness in preaching.” [24]
One of the contemporary issues or feelings which many may experience is the sense of loss of ownership of the church: participation in the community is `what happens to me` rather than `what I can do`. Going back to the practice of the early church, it seems that a special authorization to preside over the eucharist was not seen as essential: “Thus, according to Schillebeeckx, the hosts and hostesses of the house churches presided at eucharist precisely because they were also leaders in the community”. [25] The very challenging offshoot of this line of thinking is that the modern-day question – perhaps being thought of, but fearing to be articulated – of whether a lay person could preside at eucharist would not have arisen in the early church, for “Anyone who … was required by the community to preside over the community (and thus at eucharist) ipso facto became a minister by acceptance of the church: he was instituted, i.e. became the authorized leader of the community”. [26]
Szanfranski`s line of thinking is so fertile that parish study groups, and even Bishops` Conferences would do well to identify the issues raised in his article, and discuss them at length. For example: i) the mandate to serve, given by the church, could also be revoked by the church, meaning that an ordained person could serve in a `leadership` role, and later return to a `lay` role, (as is the case, for example, with Buddhist practice in Japan); ii) that `household churches` be reinstated; iii) the notion that “…the eucharist did not begin in, or for or because of the community of the ordained. Quite the opposite. Holy Orders came into being because Christian people were breaking bread and sharing a cup in Jesus` name”; and iv) that the requirements for the one who presides ( viz. male, celibate) be reconsidered. [27]
Concerning the last point mention above – the male/celibate prerequisite of the one who presides at eucharist, Sara Butler presents a very tightly reasoned evaluation of the question concening the fittingness of reserving the ministerial priesthood to males. (As mentioned above in section II) Developments in sacramental theology, the imposition of celibacy for priests in the Latin rite was a relatively late stipulation -- the late twelfth century. It concerns the image of Christ the bridegroom with the church representing the bride, in nuptual symbolism. Butler adds a further theological dimension for consideration; viz., Christ in his role as priest and head of his body the Church. I feel it necessary to resort to a lengthy reference to Butler`s text, because the issues are complex, and because she presents the complexities with clarity and succinctness: “The mystery of Christ`s loving sacrifice of himself on the cross is sacramentally represented in this sacrament. There are two subjects in this mystery, Christ and the Church; the priest is not a third party, negotiating the relationship, nor is he simply a sign of the relationship. Rather he is the sacrament through whom Christ effects his sacrificial gift as bridegroom to his bride the Church. What can be understood according to the analogy of head-body is now placed within the analogy of bridegroom-bride. Both analogies convey the idea of communion, but bridegroom-bride symbolizes communion as the “unity-of-the-two”, whereas head-body could be read – apart from this new situation within the nuptial symbol – as the somatic unity of a single organism. Considered within the nuptial analogy, the “whole Christ” is seen as “Christ and the Church”, inseparably united as “one flesh” (uno caro) in a covenant of spousal love. Christ the bridegroom (one subject) is united with the bride-Church (a second, collective subject) in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. The “whole Christ”, and not the priest alone, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice”. [28] In her analysis, Butler appears to be presenting a very solid point of departure for discussing the question of the gender-relatededness of `the one who presides at eucharist`, which is based in theology, while incorporating tradition. If my understanding is correct, Butler is arguing along lines similar to those of Szanfranski, but as a theologian rather than as a pastor.
V) Conclusions: If there has been a decline in the number of actively practicing Christians, as is commonly reported; and in view of the declining numbers of candidates for the priesthood – at least in the so-called developed countries, there is nevertheless a passion among those who `actively commit` to ensure that the integrity of the Christian Tradition is preserved, for the sake of the life of the Body – `the saints of the Church`. The finger of scorn is often pointed on account of so-called `wars of religion`, such as the Islam—Christian history; the Israel—Palestine history; the North—South Ireland history of Protestant--Catholic relations. There are scandals pertaining to sexual matters being reported as occurring within the church. There is failure to witness. In this sense, we appear to be little different from the Church, for example, to whom Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. In the words of Donahue, “In 1 Corinthians he addresses a host of problems which would make the average pastor today yearn for a Florida retirement”. [29] Indeed, we are `treasures in earthen vessels` (2 Corinthians, 4:7-11). As for those called to the ministry of Orders in the Church of today, the work of `gathering`, teaching, preaching, praying, and living exemplary lives as an example to `the saints` is as crucial a role as it has ever been. As a church, we know where we have been, but we trust in the ever-abiding Spirit of God`s love to show us where to go and to give us the means to reach our intended destination.
_________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. McBrien, R. Catholicism. Minneapolis (Winston Press Inc., 1980), 798.
2. McKenzie, J. Dictionary of the Bible. New York (Touchstone, 1965), 563.
3. McKenzie, Dictionary, 792.
4. Cooke, B. Sacraments and Sacramentality (Mystic [Conn.]: Twenty-Third Publications [2nd ed], 1994).
5. Lawler, M. Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental Theology (New York: Paulist, 1987).
6. Cooke, Sacraments, 34-35.
7. Tracey, D. The Analogical Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1981).
8. Schillebeeckx, E. “The Sacraments” An Encounter with Cod,” from Christianity Divided, ed. D.J. Callahan et al. (1961), in Theologians Today: Edward Schillebeeckx OP, ed. Martin Redfern (London: Sheed and Ward, 1972).
9. McBrien, R. Catholicism , 802.
10. Donahue, J. (1992), “The Foolishness of God”: New Testament Foundations for a Spirituality of the Priesthood” in Worship, 66 (1992), 522.
11. Shea, J. Stories of God (Chicago: Thomas Moore 1978) 8, in Richard Szafranski, “The One Who Presides at Eucharist,” Worship 63 (1989), 302.
12. Szafranski, R. “The One Who Presides at Eucharist,” Worship 63 (1989), 303.
13. Donahue, J. “The Foolishness”, 520.
14. McBrien, R. Catholicism , 798.
15. McBrien, R. Catholicism , 805.
16. Donahue, J. “The Foolishness”, 520.
17. Donahue, J. “The Foolishness”, 521.
18. Shea, J. Stories, 8
19. McBrien, R. Catholicism , 807.
20. Szafranski, R. “The One,” 300-316.
21. Szafranski, R. “The One,” 301.
22. Szafranski, R. “The One,” 300-301.
23. Szafranski, R. “The One”, 305-306
24. Apostlic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi, On Evangelization in the Modern World (Homebush: Saint Paul Publication, 1976), 76.
25. Szafranski, R. “The One”, 306.
26. Szafranski, R. “The One”, 306.
27. Szafranski, R. “The One”, 310-312.
28. Butler, S. “The Priest as Sacrament of Christ the Bridegroom” in Worship 66 (1992) , 498-517.
29. Donahue, J. “The Foolishness”, 526.
_____________________
Robert Gray is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tokyo's Wasada University. One of his research interests is Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). He is currently half-way through his MA (Theology) degree at ACU.Robert is an Australian who has lived in Japan for more than 20 years.
