Liturgy

One thing I've come to realize is that I'm not quite as fond of the Catholic liturgy my parish uses as I am of the Anglican liturgy. The Anglican worship service, in my opinion, is second to none in terms of beauty and elegance. I'm told that ONLY an Eastern Orthodox ultra-High Mass is higher and more elegant than even the best of what the Anglicans do but I can't speak from firsthand experience there as I've never been interested in going to an EO service.

Still, keep in mind the Catholic Masses I've experienced so far are all in English. But I've seen Latin Mass videos on YouTube and those look amazing. So one thing I was considering was checking out the Latin Mass once I've been officially welcomed into the Church because it is available in my area. The one closest to me is FFSP. Actually, there's one closer but that one's SSPX and I don't think I want to go there.

I'll be honest though, in a perfect world there'd be an Anglican-Use parish nearby. The closest one though is WAY uptown. I've traded messages with the rector of my ex-church home, a small ACNA parish, but he (politely) made it very clear that he doesn't want to reunite with Rome even though instruments exist to facilitate that very thing. So those are all out of the question.

But I'd LOVE to attend an Anglican-Use church. Really, it's the language of the Anglican Rite that does the trick. It's King Jamesy enough for me; it's intelligent, articulate and beautiful. As much as I'm coming to love the Catholic Church, the language thereof is just pedestrian.

Don't take my word for it though. See for yourself:

Prayer of Humble Access:
We do not presume to come to this Thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Thy Table. But Thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in us. Amen.

-- Book of Common Prayer, 1662

If anything, it's a reminder to us that as the Church has many things to offer the Anglicans, the Anglicans also have something to offer the Church. They bring something to the table. It's a pretty clear demonstration of how important reunification is.

But wow, I've strayed from my original point. I guess what I'm saying is that lacking an Anglican-Use alternative, I'll give the Latin Mass a shot.

My Religious Text

I suspect that a lot of Christians feel really aggravated and talked down to when some non-believing liberal tells them what the Bible says and how it should be interpreted. And many of them aren't afraid to admit it either.

That's where we are right now. Several liberals are perfectly willing to tell Christians who Our Lord would be willing to bake and sell cakes to and just how loving and affirming He'd be to anybody and everybody. I've seen a lot of my friends from the evangelical world have meltdowns over that patronizing stupidity on Facebook and various blogs I keep up with.

"Who do these people think they are telling ME what MY Bible says?"

"It's gotta take a lot of [testosterone] to use my Savior for your own purposes like that!"

"Where do YOU get off dictating to me what the Bible does and doesn't say and how it should and shouldn't be interpreted? We have centuries of study and interpretation reinforcing our point of view."

My heart bleeds. But at least now the evangelicals know how the Catholics have felt since 1517.

Ash Wednesday

Seems like I've always got more material to write about than I do time to sift through it all. I guess it's the way of all things. The way of the Force.

I've touched on the cake-baking stupidity (Dear Judges. "Free association". Look it up. XOXO, Magnus). Haven't gone near the Holy Father unintentionally dropping the f-bomb. The main reason for that is because the reaction to that has been overwhelmingly positive among non-believers and, from what I've been able to gather, completely silent among my side. The poor guy tripped over his words. Happens to the best of us.

But Ash Wednesday. That's a very topical thing for this blog considering it's supposed to be about my journey into the Catholic Church and stupid political issues keep coming along to trip everything up.

Anyway. Ash Wednesday. Attended a Liturgy of the Word, after which was the Imposition of Ashes. Pretty brief thing, actually. And to be honest, I'm not completely sure I understand what my obligations are for Lent. Being as I'm only an Inquirer, it's up for grabs precisely what's expected of me.

Still, I feel a weight of assurance. There's a rhythm to the seasons and feasts and holy days utterly lacking from anyplace else, including the Anglican church. The authority of the Church is more important than I ever dreamed possible back when I was lost in Evangelical Land. These men are called by God Himself to SERVE. It's their life's mission and they don't mess around with it.

So when the pastor challenged each of us to fully embrace the Lent season with our fasting, prayers and penitence, he wasn't just indulging in persuasive rhetoric. He was using the authority given him by Our Lord to guide us and lead us in life and in our faith.

Compare this to, say, either Southern Baptist church I used to attend, where the pastors thereof would use that as an opportunity to "lead people to Christ" or some such. Okay, fine, but THEN WHAT? What's supposed to happen AFTER they "decide for Christ"? The Southern Baptists CAN'T answer that because the Southern Baptists don't wield that sort of leadership and authority over their flocks. They throw the word "discipleship" around a lot but little or nothing goes on to truly guide people in their faith, challenge them to grow as Christians and help steer them through life's challenges. It's simply absent from the Southern Baptist Convention.

But it's an ever-present thing in the Catholic Church because we CAN'T do it on our own. We need an authority to guide us. So the pastor of my church said that I should embrace the Lent season, he threw out a few examples of what that might entail and then expected us to do it.

November 2013 is when I became persuaded by Catholic dogma. Ash Wednesday 2014 is when I became a Catholic.

Gay Marriage and the Lessons Learned

I hope the Republican Party learns their lesson from all this same-sex "marriage" nonsense going on right now. There were opportunities to deal with this decades ago with a Constitutional amendment. But the left (and their rubber-stamp media) all said that it wasn't necessary, it was overkill, don't overreact, etc.

Let this be a lesson to you too: Any time a liberal says ANY kind of legislation is unnecessary, pass it anyway.

In 1995, we were told that opposing civil unions is bigoted. They exist only to create a legal framework for gays to have a relationship recognized by the state. That's it! Nothing more! So there's no need to amend the Constitution to strictly define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Why, that's the whole reason we have DOMA! Constitutional amendments are overkill! So don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2004, we were told that opposing the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling is bigoted because it only extends benefits to gay couples that everybody should have! Besides, this is one ruling in one state! There's no need to amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman! It doesn't mean marriage is being redefined so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2013, we were told that the Supreme Court did the right thing by striking down part of DOMA and saying anything to the contrary was bigoted! It's not like the Court ruled that gay "marriage" is legal and required by all 50 states so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2014, we're being told that refusing to do business with gay couples is bigoted because the crazed liberal mob says so. After all, it's not like the Constitution say that marriage can't mean something other than one man and one woman. This is perfectly legal and Constitutional. But don't worry, nobody's saying that churches will have to participate in same-sex ceremonies if they don't want to so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

At the rate things are going, does anybody still think this won't eventually end with priests, pastors and other clergy being jailed for refusing to officiate gay ceremonies?

When a liberal says not to pass a piece of legislation because it's overkill, it's redundant, it's unnecessary or whatever else, pass it anyway.

Words Have Meaning

This is part of the video we watched during RCIA last Thursday about Our Lady. I mentioned before that this is one of those Catholic dogmas that I struggled with over the years.

On the one hand, I didn't need very much convincing that Our Lady deserves more honor than she's given in most evangelical churches. I'd wondered more than once if the leaders of what I now regard as the Protestant Rebellion hadn't tossed the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to her.

At the same time though, I couldn't exactly fit all that in with what I knew about the Catholic Church's teachings and dogmas concerning her. And the reason for that turns out to be that I was lied to about how the Church views Our Lady. It's not "worship".

Words MEAN something. And speaking as a former-evangelical, total ignorance as to what the Church teaches and stands for is an evangelical specialty. This is especially true when it comes to the Blessed Virgin. It's the evangelical in a million who understands the difference between "veneration" and "worship". Theirs is an alarming tendency to throw words around without an iota of understanding of what they mean. "The Catholics venerate Mary! That's idolatry!" I should not that "veneration" is the act of showing reverence and honor. "Idolatry" is worshiping images of some kind. Praying to Our Lady is therefore neither "worship" nor "idolatry". Grasping those concepts isn't difficult; it simply requires brains and discernment evangelicals apparently lack.

Does this seem harsh? The objective truth is that evangelicals don't understand what the Church teaches. That's not open to debate. The cause therefore is either (A) a lack of intelligence or (B) an agenda to intentionally misrepresent the Church. Incompetence is the lesser evil, wouldn't you agree?

In any case, the Church's views of Our Lady actually make perfect sense when someone qualified to explain them breaks them down for you. So I guess it's like anything else; never trust evangelicals to explain Catholic doctrine.

Now, this all works to convince me on an intellectual level about the importance she plays in theology. But I still struggle with the idea of praying to her. Or, for that matter, any of the saints. You can take the boy out of evangelicaldom but you can't take evangelicaldom out of the boy, it seems.

But I'm working my way through it. I've decided to start small and then work up to bigger things later.

Baby steps.

More to follow...

Serving- You're Doing It Wrong

As a fire-breathing evangelical, one of the things I noticed pretty quickly was how unwilling some evangelical church members tend to be to get involved, monetarily support the church, serve in any type of role or much of anything else.

Kurt Cobain said it best: Here we are now, entertain us.

I find that attitude inexcusable in any context, but especially in evangelicalism because they offer more opportunities to serve and lead in greater numbers than I've seen so far in the Catholic Church.

And believe it or not, that isn't a criticism of the Mother Church. It's a criticism of evangelicalism. My view now is that ordained clergy should lead everything or, in things they simply can't because of time constraints, they nevertheless keep the lay-leaders on a tight leash.

But when I was an evangelical, I saw so many opportunities to serve in leadership that my mind was blown when people would whine about being unable to get involved. I guess they were waiting for the lead pastor and a group of deacons to visit their home and beg them to do something.

In any case, I served in various things. Initially, I handled Southern Baptist Church #1's podcast. It was easy work so I was happy to do it. I knew less about audio editing then than I do now, otherwise it would be even easier to do these days. Which is really saying something.

Speaking of brainless work, after that I was a member of a small group for 20 and 30-somethings and handled the group's attendance records. I passed around a spiral notebook into which everybody wrote their name and then filled in the blanks on the necessary form. As redundant as it sounds, there was a method to the madness for doing attendance in such a roundabout way. I just can't remember what it was.

Finally, as I've said before, I became that small group's teacher. That went fine for a while. And then all hell broke loose. But I've talked about that before.

Throughout, though, what I noticed was that church members were encouraged to get involved in such things. They had to be encouraged. Usually once or twice per month, the lead pastor of SB Church #1 would bring it up during his sermon, whether it was a casual mention in passing or if that was the entire point of his lesson.

What NEVER happened during my membership class though was someone affiliated with the church presenting a list of different options and asking me how I want to contribute. But during my last RCIA class, the Catechist told my group of Inquirers that when we're fully accepted into the Church, we'll be given a month or two or three to just be Catholic, after which we'll meet with somebody (a priest, a deacon, SOMEBODY), be shown a list of different things we can do and then asked which we'd like to consider.

Apart from being welcome at least to me, this was abjectly foreign to my church-going experience. I was accustomed to having the very highest levels of church bureaucracy practically begging people to get involved, mid-level church bureaucracy gumming up the works and apathetic members sabotaging anybody who tried to make an effort.

So the notion of the Church proactively reaching out to help the laity figure out where they can fit in and make a contribution beyond just writing a check was and is a new idea for me.

Apart from that though, the Catechist rattled off a few suggestions. Here's an incomplete list of what was already an incomplete list:

Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister- My parish has such a huge number of members that there's no way the priests can personally distribute Holy Communion so they use laypeople as extraordinary ministers. Not sure what to think of this, actually. I'm not opposed to it. And I definitely want to help. But part of me thinks it'd be weird for someone so new to the faith distributing Holy Communion to people who were knee-deep in the faith before I was even born. So I don't know.

Usher- This looks most attractive. It's a small but important task.

Catechist- Skipping the Church's lingo for just a minute, I'd be teaching again. No thanks. I don't do that stuff anymore. No.

Cantor- I can't sing so this one's out.

Lector- This is the second most attractive after the usher.

Those were what I can remember the Catechist mentioning but I'd imagine there are other choices. But as I say what impresses me is that the clergy from the get-go is extracting some kind of commitment and involvement from the new Church members. Everybody's expected to contribute something. That works for me as the Body of Christ is made up of many members who perform diverse functions. We should all be doing this.

To put it another way, Rome's bureaucracy works while at least SB Church #1's bureaucracy simultaneously begs for and chases off volunteers.

The Squishy Center

One thing that I remember reading in that brouhaha after A&E caved to pressure to reinstate Phil Robertson after he shot his mouth off about homosexuality was an anonymous network source telling a FoxNews.com writer that several ABC and CBS network executives were fuming about how A&E knuckled under. The source then asked what this meant for moral standards going forward.

I'll put aside the irony of how people on my side were laughed at for asking the same questions about morality 10 or 15 years ago. There's too much schadenfreude there to be of interest to any of you.

Still, he does raise a good point (unintentionally, I'm sure). You see, 50 or 60 years ago, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were basically economic definitions. The words themselves assumed a common worldview. The issue came down to basically what you thought the government's responsibilities were to the economy.

Obviously that's not the case anymore. I find that when you use the word "worldview", peoples' eyes glass over and they lose all understanding of what you're saying. When you instead say "morality", they're able to follow you a lot easier. I don't know why and I choose not to fight it. It simply IS.

People say that the United States of America is made up of two countries. The "union" is strictly theoretical. That's a premise I tend to accept because it's certainly descriptive of the last several Presidential elections, all of which rose and fell on the voting preferences of 6 or 8 "swing states". The residents of reliably blue states and reliably red states drew their lines in the sand long ago. So let's hope the people in Ohio want tax cuts, eh?

Obviously it comes down to religion. That's the root problem. But the manifestation is morality. There are two moralities at play in America. Two very different and mutually exclusive definitions of right and wrong. And ultimately one or the other will become the dominant moral force in American public life.

That sounds extremist to a lot of people who call themselves moderates. The squishy center. To people like them, I sound like a freak. But history bears me out. There is no center. The center today will be either left of center or right of center ten years from now. It's not a fixed point. It's a self-defeating philosophy And ultimately it doesn't exist.

One side or the other will come to be the decisive moral voice. And for now, it seems obvious which way the winds are blowing. But, as I said before, it's rarely liberals who schism.

The Gay Lobby and Painty-Waist Libertarianism

Yeesh, this is just not my week for sticking to my original plan. I wanted to talk about lay ministries today. But apparently, like the Messianic Judaism entry originally scheduled for yesterday, it just wasn't meant to be.

Okay, big doings in Arizona as Governor Brewer may or may not sign a bill into law that will, GASP!, permit businesses to associate with whomever they want to associate! That's antigayhomophobicbigotedchristofascistgodbaggery!

This has led a few people from the right and the left to call for marriage privatization. That is to say "get the government out of marriage".

Now, my views on most political issues are "cut government, cut taxes, privatize it". That applies to just about everything. Just about. But not everything. Marriage is a good example of my "just about everything" clause.

Whether anybody likes it or not, marriage is a spiritual union between one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. But marriage is also a legal union between two people (for now) recognized by the State. It must be this way. Be it for taxation, inheritance, visitation, legal testimony and other things, the government has a role to play. Whether anybody likes it or not

It's well and good to argue that the government has no business being in the marriage business. And in a world where divorce is rare and would be adjudicated exclusively through churches or private arbiters, privatization even makes some amount of sense. But this isn't a perfect world. The Left has done all it can to enshrine divorce as an institution in this country. Property laws being what they are, the government has to rule on these things.

It's not "fair", it's not "right", but it's the way things are.

I really wish the panty-waist libertarian wing of the Republican Party would adopt a consistent line on when the government should or shouldn't take action. They pipe up everytime one of these "same-sex marriage" issues comes along but somehow their commitment to constitutional government stops short of little things like cutting entitlements and balancing the budget.

This is a contentious issue. One side wants marriage to be legally defined the way it has been for millennia in western civilization. The other side wants to redefine the word and entire concept.

One side will win and the other will lose. It's that simple.

And honestly, I don't really even care about it very much. When it comes to the "gay agenda", I don't care about the "gay" part. The "agenda" part... that's something else.

What people do with each other behind closed doors doesn't affect me. Therefore it doesn't concern me. It's not my job to "rescue" people from these things. What I care about is being free to practice my religion in peace.

Now, The Secular Chorus always sings that our priests, churches and religious organizations will "never" be forced to perform unions they have a religious objection to.

Right now though, people are getting dragged into court and sued into oblivion because they don't want to do business with gay people, usually on religious grounds. So I hope the marriage-redefiners can at least see why I and others are concerned here.

Unity and the 13th Standard

Guess I should probably talk about the video message Pope Francis sent via Tony Palmer to a Pentecostal congregation. But before I do, here it is for you to watch yourself.

Obviously this is a pretty moving video. No question there. And also obviously I have a place in my heart for evangelical Christians because I used to be one. And who doesn't want unity? We need it now more than ever.

It's interesting studying the reactions to this video. All manner of points of view have been expressed. Some Pentecostals have questioned why they should seek unity with statue-worshiping idolaters like the Catholic Church. I've even seen a few Catholics unintentionally confess they didn't know there's such a thing as Charismatic Catholicism. You may not like the fact that they exist. But exist they do. And they've received no rebuke from the Church so it's not my business or yours to criticize them.

There are some challenges here though. It's well and good to cheer for "unity" as an abstract concept but sooner or later we have to work to achieve unity if we're to be taken seriously. How do we define "unity"? If we mean that in the sense of one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, things get sticky.

Putting aside the differences between your average Southern Baptist church and your average Pentecostal church, one key issue that evangelicals at large agree about is the illegitimacy of the papal office. Sure, there are other dogmas peculiar to the Catholic faith that evangelicals object to but the mere existence of the papacy is probably the most obvious.

For the Church to reunite with any evangelical denomination, one side or the other will have to do something drastic when it comes to the papacy. Probably to the entire concept of ordained clergy but, most obviously, the Pope. Either the Pentecostals will have to fully accept the Church's authority and teachings (which seems unlikely) or else the Church will have to abandon those things (which seems unlikelier).

One side or the other will have to effectively knuckle under to the other.

Now, I've studied a lot of history and, most recently, the writings of the Church Fathers. Their theology, beliefs and religious practices sound suspiciously like a fairly primitive, less nuanced and less developed version of the Catholic Church. Several key issues and doctrines may not have been fully hammered out just then but they were essentially Catholic. This is one of the main reasons I made the decision to join the Catholic Church last year.

Unity between the Church and evangelicals in the form of visible reunification means one side or the other has to put aside some of their most deeply held convictions. And I know where of I speak because it wasn't long ago I had to do that very thing myself. That's why I firmly believe that visible, institutional reunification is, humanly speaking, unlikely. Pride, if nothing else, will keep other evangelicals from even considering accepting Catholic doctrines.

And might I say that Tony Palmer is part of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches? The CEEC is part of the Convergence Movement, which seeks to unify charismatic worship with liturgical sources like the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The purpose is to ultimately move Catholics, evangelicals and charismatics more closely together.

On the surface that seems admirable enough, right? Like I said, who doesn't want unity? But it's like the old software programmer joke. You have two programmers sitting together when one of them complains about there being 12 different "standards" for a certain programming method. "TWELVE standards?! That's just INSANE! There should only be one! Let's you and me develop a perfect, unified standard that EVERYBODY can use to replace those twelve."

And thus is born the 13th "standard".

In CEEC's case, they're not connected to the worldwide Anglican Communion but they are connected to schism groups such as the Anglican Movement in America and the Anglican Church in North America. And those two groups aren't connected to the Anglican Communion either but they are in communion with certain member provinces of the Anglican Communion?

Confused yet?

Also, did I mention that the CEEC ordains women to the diaconate and the priesthood? And so do AMiA and ACNA? So IF unity is the intended outcome, what happens to those "female clergy"? The Church has taught infallibly that ordination is for men. Will the CEEC give way on that? Or is this another thing the Church would have to compromise on?

Now, I give the Holy Father kudos in the extreme for reaching out. His video message in essence is saying that the Church is keeping the door open for them. I'm not impugning his motives. But I do question the evangelicals who scream so loudly for unity. They're all "13th standards" waiting to happen... and they have a "13th standard" leading the charge in the form of Tony Palmer.

I actually find this more confusing and slightly offensive as a Catholic an RCIA Inquirer than I did as an evangelical. Maybe it's related to my political orientation but back in the old days, I didn't see the problem with having more varieties of Christianity in the religious marketplace. What's the harm? We're all worshiping the same God, depending upon the same Christ and praying in the same Spirit. Our unity is spiritual more than it is visible or physical.

But these days it bothers me inasmuch as I have been willing to put my ego aside and admit that I was wrong about the Catholic Church my entire life. So I wonder what makes my former-fellows think special exception should be made for them? What, the ancient Church should change just to accommodate THEM? Their mentality just strikes me as very American.

Anyway. And just think, the original topic I had in mind for today was Messianic Judaism. And one Messianic Jew in particular. Guess I'll save that for another time.

More to follow.

My Catholic Year- RCIA Update

Man, have I been active with updates lately or what?

So. RCIA. Basically this past Thursday was about God the Father. This is a fairly heavy subject but the video series we've been watching ("Catholicism" by Fr. John Barron) has been top quality. He made a point that I'd not considered before. He said that many atheists tend to reject the idea of God (as an abstract concept) because they can't buy into the notion of some kind of sky-daddy who grants wishes and stuff.

Fr. Barron said he can't either. So he and atheists are in the same boat on that one. The remainder of the video was devoted to spelling out, as best as is possible by sinful man, who and what God is. And isn't.

Now, far be it from me to second-guess Fr. Barron about this. I suspect this his comment was meant to achieve the intellectual interest it garnered from me to facilitate the rest of his points. And in that purpose, he was most assuredly successful. But I've long thought the problem with many atheists is less their understanding of God and more their want to NOT believe in Him.

By and large I find that to be true. Any time an atheists sounds off on God, they tend to use snarky bumper sticker nonsense like "when religion ruled the world, we called it the Dark Ages". The fallacies and historical ignorance there defy comprehension. Nevertheless, it's the perfect atheist soundbyte. Because soundbytes are what they deal in; rational arguments are checked at the door.

In any case though, I found the video enlightening and the discussion thereafter with the Catechists and my fellow Inquirers enjoyable.

The video set up for this coming Thursday relates to Our Lady. Now, I've had a mixed view of her over the years, even when I was a fire-breathing evangelical. I believed that we Protestants had maybe thrown the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to be different from the Catholics. Fact is I'd thought she deserved more regard that we Southern Baptists had afforded her.

And yes, watching Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ only reinforced that attitude.

At the same time though, I couldn't quite wrap my arms around several Church dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. So I was sort of stuck in no man's land where nobody quite viewed her the way I did.

Now, a great big part of this was due to some amount of ignorance about what the Church truly teaches about Our Lady. These days, my belief is that Church teachings are pretty much unassailable... when they're taught accurately. And that generally comes from clergy or else extremely well-informed laypeople.

But that was a realization that I didn't have access to as a good little Southern Baptist. Because of that, I toed the party line that the Catholic Church had a few good ideas but they'd wandered WAY off the reservation with several key doctrines, including (but not limited to) teachings concerning baptism, the Eucharist and, most importantly, the Blessed Virgin.

Yes, I've changed my attitude about a LOT of this; I'm simply saying what my belief was ages ago.

And of considerable interest there were her supposed sinlessness and eternal virginity. Come on, we all sin. All of us. Even the best of us. And as to her private life, she was a married woman. You mean to tell me her husband didn't expect her to be his wife (if you take my meaning)?

The first challenge to that stuff came when I was studying Anglicanism and happened across an Anglo-Catholic blog. I've heard even Catholic priests use this line since first reading this so I don't know whom to credit here.

But the blogger compared Our Lady to Mt. Moriah when Moses first encountered God. Moses was instructed to remove his sandals because this is holy ground. For the Lord is present and where He is is holy.

Think it through. If Mt. Moriah was holy ground because of the Lord's presence, what does that imply about Our Lady as the Mother of Our Lord? Both her sinlessness and her marriage?

Mind. Blown.

It's not perfect. Like it or not, I was raised Protevangelical and I can't magically undo that so some aspects of this are still challenging. So my hope is that the video will clear up my lingering doubts. Or if it doesn't, my Catechist will. Either way, I'll submit to the Church on this

What I'm content with though is that my hunch that Our Lady deserved a higher regarded than I'd given her as an evangelical has been justified.