Lent & Other Musings

I gave up soft drinks for Lent. My Catechist said that as my fellow Inquirers and I aren't members of the Church, we actually don't even have to participate in Lent. But if we already believe, there's no reason not to participate.

So here I am.

And as I say, I gave up soft drinks for Lent. I mainline caffeinated beverages: Coca Cola, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper and other things. I have two major vices in life: caffeine and nicotine. And, thankfully, they're both legal. So giving one of them up for Lent was a pretty courageous thing, if I do say so myself.

Of course, cutting off the soft drinks means pretty much cutting off my main source of caffeine. In case it's not obvious where this is going, I had a pretty roaring headache for a couple of days. Took forever to subside.

I tend to plan ahead. Not always but usually. As such, I had items in the hopper waiting to be posted so I went ahead and posted them. The reason for that is because the idea of posting new material with THIS kind of headache struck me as pure insanity.

Since my headache has subsided though, I think I've settled into Lent pretty well. The fasting aspect hasn't been too difficult. And as I've said before, I've been improving my prayer life. And let's face it, Lent isn't a bad time to do that sort of thing. I've heard of people going to Reconciliation/Confession more often during Lent but as an Inquirer, I don't think I'm permitted to do that just yet. But the concept does interest me.

In other news, today Barry the Teleprompter Messiah delayed Obamacare's individual mandate for a period of two years. As a total coincidence, the Democrats lost the special election yesterday for a House of Representatives race yesterday. I'm sure these two things are completely unrelated to each other though.

sigh

I can't help it. I don't want to run an overtly political blog but things like this are why I don't believe in universal suffrage. Not just anybody should be able to vote.

The Evolution of Belief and Theology

I've not talked a whole lot about the evolution of my beliefs over the years. Now, that's not to say I haven't blabbered on at length about my path to the Church. Because I have. At great length.

When I started getting serious about faith at the tender age of 24, I knew the most important thing obviously was theology. If you don't know the how and the why, it's hard to accept the way and then believe in the Whom. Makes sense.

So in short order I started off on the basis that the Catholic Church is full of wackadoo teachings that aren't worth listening to, they're off the reservation about basically everything and I should just move on.

As I've written before (again, here), I'd long been interested in Anglicanism. It's kind of like Catholicism, but less so; all the ritual, half the guilt, none of the Popes. What's not to like?

The issue there is that the Episcopal Church USA was a mess. Now, to be fair, there's never been a moment in my life when TEC wasn't facing some crisis or another. I was born only a couple of years after the Anglican Communion decided, oops, you know what? Women can serve in the priesthood after all! It really has been downhill for them ever since.

By 2006, when I began casting about for a denomination to call home, I was faced with the choice of entrusting my soul to a group of weirdo Episcopalians who didn't even seem to have a basic understanding of the clear teachings of Scripture. Female presiding archbishops, gay priests, transgendered bishops; what a mess!

So, with regrets, I ventured into Southern Baptist Land and didn't come up for air until about five or six years later. Still, I had a spark of interest in liturgy and formal worship. A liturgy that's been refined over the centuries just seemed more trustworthy to me than some dude who graduated from "Bible college" up there extemporizing.

Besides, on a practical level, I never appreciated the emotional and/or responsive manipulation of a lot of Southern Baptist worship. A good example of what I mean is Jonathan Stockstill's song "Let the Church Rise". The lights go down, the "worship team" (can't call them a choir, no no, that'd be BAD!) begin the song softly and right as they build to a rousing crescendo with the chorus, the lights come back up, which is your cue to rise (heh, get it?) to your feet.

And whatever, there are people out there who get off on manipulative nonsense like that. Far be it from me to judge. I'm just saying I found it shallow and almost offensive.

But, and here's the odd part, Southern Baptists are not at all averse to more atmospheric things like darkened rooms and candles. They simply always remember to plug in their electric guitars. So it felt, at once, kinda sorta formalized but with just enough informality to appeal to... actually, I'm not sure who's supposed to be interested in that neurotic presentation. But their churches are packed every Sunday so what do I know?

All I can say is that I tolerated that stuff because I had responsibilities at SB Church #1 by that point. Originally it was editing, mixing and then uploading the podcast of the pastor's sermon each week. Then it was taking attendance for my small group of 20 and 30-something singles. And ultimately it was teaching that small group.

So as I say, the worship "praise section" didn't interest me much but I didn't feel right about turning my back on people who needed me.

Oh, if I knew then what I know...

But I didn't, that's the point. Anyway, but becoming a small group teacher requires you to learn and study a lot, which is how I became more deeply entrenched in "reformed" theology. And as I did so, I reached the conclusion that there was no unity here. None.

Now, in today's post-evangelical world, that word needs some definition. What I mean is that no two Protestants agree on the meaning of any given verse in the Bible. The joke I always heard (and never found funny) was that if you get five Southern Baptist pastors into one room, there'll be nine opinions. Apparently we're supposed to find the lack of unity amusing.

It may seem like a small thing but think about it for just a minute. To a man, they all believe in Sola Scriptura. Which is to say that the Bible is the first, last and only infallible source of authority man has access to. I've poked holes in that before so need to do it again. But teaching this small group was my first real look at how little Protestants have in common even with each other.

I think it can fairly be said that there's no single doctrine or interpretation of Scripture that all Protestants would agree about, up to and including the Messiah's identity and relationship to the Father.

That alone suggests that there's something very severely wrong with the Sola Scriptura doctrine as the Bible is made up of God's Word, God's Word is made up of individual testaments, those individual testaments are made up of individual books, those individual books are made up of words and words have meaning. "X" cannot be "X" and "the opposite of X" at the same time and in the same context. Words have meaning because the Author wants to convey an idea. It's crazy to think that He'd long tolerate such wasteful disarray among His own (supposed) followers.

That bothered me but I never made a big deal out of it because, like I said, I had responsibilities at SB Church #1. People were depending on me, after all. But eventually I was pretty much shown the door at SB Church #1 and my reputation was smithereens as a result.

The issue here is that it was easy for my enemies at SB Church #1 to take me out because I'm not ordained. Moreover, I barely knew any of the higher-ups at SB Church #1. I was teaching a group in their Singles Ministry but I'd never even met the lead pastor of SB Church #1 face to face. None of them knew me. There was no relationship there. But my enemies had friends in very high places. At least one or two were deacons, in fact.

And like I said, things didn't work out so well at SB Church #2 because some familiar faces from #1 started showing up there since our former group was such a mess.

So by the time I started casting about for a new denomination, I'd learned some hard lessons. Some of them were:

Sola Scriptura is a weak, illogical, self-refuting doctrine

Women need a warm glass of STFU when it comes to church leadership

Laity have no business teaching or holding positions of authority unless they're closely monitored by someone with a true, genuine calling

So when I began searching for a new home, I not only knew that the Southern Baptist Convention was out of the question, but whether I liked it or not, I had doctrinal issues to work out. I made this decision in 2012, by which time the Anglican Church in North America had come into an existence as an alternative to TEC.

It felt like this was the continuation of something I'd started back in 2006 but had to abandon because TEC was such a mess. Now, Anglicanism's roots in Catholicism mean it isn't a Sola Scriptura denomination. They relied upon other authorities, not least of which is tradition.

Tradition plays a major role in their beliefs, practices, liturgy and theology. Makes sense. History is (or should be) a guide both in terms of what to do and what not to do. So by way of demonstration, the Anglicans helped knock down my belief in Sola Scriptura. Not that there was much belief left in it by that point.

The transition to Anglicanism was easier than I first thought. Sure, making the Sign of the Cross was a new idea for me. But you adjust. I eventually veered over to Anglo-Catholicism, which required a bit more effort because... well, it's in the name. Catholic.

Eucharistic theology is a good example of what I'm talking about. I'd been raised to view the Lord's Supper as a strictly commemorative act. I think I was 26 or so before I even realized there were differing opinions on the matter. But the ACNA parish I attended was decidedly Anglo-Catholic and about as high church as they could be given the parameters in which they had to work. And they made it clear that they believe in the Real Presence.

I rationalized it at the time. "Well, just because they think of the Eucharist as the Lord's body and blood doesn't mean I have to. It can be a strictly symbolic memorial for me." But I soon stumbled across the letter written by St. Ignatius to the Smyrneans wherein St. Ignatius identified as a heretic anybody believed the Eucharist wasn't the Body and the Blood. Historians differ on whether Ignatius was taught by St. Peter, St. Paul or St. John, but what seems sure is that he was trained by at least one of the apostles.

Considering how far back in history that was, wouldn't St. Ignatius know what he was talking about?

His view of the Eucharist as the Body and the Blood of Our Lord was a game-changer. It was also the first time I'd given Catholic theology real consideration. No "reformed" nonsense, no Anglican middle step, pure, straight-up Catholic doctrine. And for the first time I realized Catholic teachings held up to scrutiny.

Most people have common objections to Catholic theology. My objections were no different. And what I found was the Catholics had a good justification for everything, no matter how small. Take a crucifix, for example. I had the usual evangelical reservations about them, and found easy answers for why Catholics tend toward crucifixes rather than empty crosses.

My point is that they had a logical, coherent answer for everything. Everything! Now, yes, it offended the anti-Catholic sensibilities in which I'd been raised. No doubt about it. But do you turn your back on the truth because people won't like the fact that you found it?

Another thing was that creeds are only divisive when heretics listen to them. The entire point of a creed is to identify the key elements of our faith and distill them down to a quick summary. If you can't recite a creed in good conscience, you don't belong. Simple as that.

Ditto formalized prayers. They're only as robotic and lifeless as the person praying lets them be. If one's heart isn't in it, it's their fault; not the formalized prayer's.

Similar things can be said of other uniquely Catholic practices. My point, however, is that the Church can defend and justify all her beliefs and practices when someone with an open mind gives her the chance.

And ultimately that was probably the greatest revelation of all.

More to follow.

Considering Messianic Jews and Authentic Teaching

My church is doing missions stuff (likely in conjunction with Spring Break for several schools in the area) so there won't be RCIA this week. That doesn't mean there isn't stuff to talk about though.

For the past few years, I've followed a certain Messianic Jew's blog. We shall call her "Hannah". Now, "Hannah" started out in evangelicaldom like I did. And also like I did, she eventually got fed up with how they do things so she left in favor of a more ritualized form of religion.

That's about as much as our respective faith journeys have in common though.

Obviously I ended up in the Catholic Church. Or I will be in the Catholic Church by the end of April of this year. Same difference. "Hannah", though, ended up in Messianic Judaism. And, man, what a ride!

Now, I should pause here to say that I long ago learned that a small amount of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. That's not new information for me. But even with that truism in mind, the blog "Hannah" maintains really is in a class all by itself.

There are many points I could make and many examples I could cite. However, I ultimately decided to leave "Hannah" safely anonymous and instead deal with just a few issues that concern me.

First off, there's Messianic Judaism itself. I have a high regard for their commitment to studying God's Word. For whatever else I could say about the MJ movement, they don't mess around when it comes to study. That's the good news. The bad news though is they have reached all the wrong conclusions.

The entire thrust of the MJ movement is their selective adherence to the Mosaic Law. I suppose the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15 wasn't specific enough for them vis a vis a Christian's religious requirements, be he Jew or Gentile.

The other issue though is that Messianic Judaism is ultimately designed to appeal to Jewish converts who expect (depend on?) a fairly strict code of religious obligation. As such, legitimate teaching authorities such as the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council tend to view Gentile converts as not only unnecessary but likely unbiblical.

Being a Gentile herself, that poses a pretty serious problem for "Hannah". When your own teachers and leaders think you shouldn't be there, you have to go through some pretty interesting logical contortions to justify your continued attendance.

In the case of "Hannah", she resolves this, first, by bad-mouthing the rabbis who teach on these matters and, second, by claiming that the early Church abided by Torah. But then the wicked Constantine came along and he ruined the whole thing, you see.

Apart from the fact that the historical record doesn't support her in any way whatsoever (and what's with Constantine being the Grand Central Station for blame for all the early Church's problems anyway?), it makes you wonder if Our Lord was only kidding when He said He would be with us always, even unto the end of the age. So, what, right around 330 AD, He went on vacation for a bunch of a centuries and only took an active interest in His Church again during the 1970's in America?

Now don't get me wrong, Protestants have to overcome similar hurdles. They have an easier time though because they can at least claim the Catholic Church operated properly for millennia but eventually fell into error. Luckily though, it was right around then that Martin Luther showed up to lead his rebellion revolution "reformation". The Protestants would say that the church never went away; it simply needed to be reformed.

Messianic Jews obviously can't claim even that much. As a result, many of them don't even try. Except obviously for "Hannah", that is.

"Hannah" recently closed down comments on her blog. She claimed that she was being inundated by annoying, pious, holier-than-thou-art wannabe Christians and rather than endlessly moderate the virtual deluge of vitriol and negativity, she's ended comment privileges altogether.

Now, it's impossible to know for sure what those other comments said. Or if they even exist. Because none of them were ever posted. The only comments "Hannah" approved tended to be flattery of her "expert" scholarship. On top of all that, and because of all that, the only vitriol and negativity visible on her blog was written by "Hannah" herself. Whether it was merely a different opinion or, for that matter, an innocent human error, "Hannah" shows no mercy when anybody dares say something she disagrees with.

For my part, I tried on two occasions to gently correct her misunderstandings of history. My opinion then and now was that a careful, honest review of history shows the Catholic Church to be on the right side. So rather than endlessly debate doctrines and Scriptural interpretations, I tried to stick with objectively true or objectively not true facts of history that anybody can verify for himself. The tone I went out of my way to take was polite and conversational. "Say, I don't know if what you wrote up there is true because there are records aplenty of early Church Fathers saying almost the total opposite of what you claim," or "Believe it or not, there is no record of ANY kind of holiday being celebrated on December 25 prior to Christianity. Claims to the contrary are sourced exclusively from Protestants with an axe to grind" and the like.

And shortly thereafter, "Hannah" began disallowing comments. It's hard not to see it at least in part as a reaction to the two comments I submitted.

Apart from a sketchy view of history, "Hannah" appears to hold to a rather bizarre view of Sola Scriptura (which is to say Scripture alone is the only infallible source to guide men's faith and religion). I say it's "bizarre" because the MJ movement is predicated on forms of tradition, which, by definition, cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. How does "Hannah" square the (seemingly selective) Sola Scriptura viewpoint with a movement so heavily founded on oral tradition? It's impossible to know because "Hannah" never spells it out.

Last of all, however, is the view "Hannah" has of End Time prophecy. This is perhaps where her roots in evangelicdom are strongest, as she believes we are IN the End Times. Now, many evangelicals believe we're "near" the End Times. Be it Hal Lindsey, Chuck Missler, Tim LaHaye or any hundreds of others, it's simply not difficult to find people who teach these things. To a man, they would all say we're "near" the End Times.

Where "Hannah" sets herself apart from the pack. She doesn't believe we're "near" the End Times. She believes that we are IN the End Times. For as extreme as the teachers and writers that I mentioned may appear to be, NONE of them (I've checked) have ever said that we are "in" the End Times.

Not. One.

Now, the purpose of this isn't to criticize "Hannah". In fact, it's not even to criticize Messianic Judaism. I mention this to say, ultimately, that this is how badly things can go wrong without a Magisterium to lead and teach the flock. Our Lord built His Church, promised He would never leave it and that the gates of Hell won't prevail against it. He must have been telling the truth or else he wouldn't be Our Lord. If you can't accept that fundamental premise, I question whether you even have the right to say you belong to Him.

More to follow.

Considering Liturgical Prayer

Back when I first began considering membership with the Catholic Church, if you'd told me that formalized prayer would come naturally, I'd have said you were crazy. I would've assumed that, of all decidedly Catholic practices, that would be the hardest thing to get into.

The above is what you might call "leading the witness" in a court of law. It's a standard practice in a lot of writing. The goal is to produce an unexpected dramatic reversal of what went previously in order to entice the reader to continue reading.

But oddly enough, I've gathered a few formalized that interest me and have begun praying those most mornings with surprising ease.

In terms of unexpected dramatic reversals, how am I doing so far?

Specifically these prayers are the Our Father, Act of Contrition, Hail Mary, Alma Redemptoris Mater and the Apostles' Creed. I chose them either for their frequent appearances in the liturgy or else because they're devotionals that are new and mostly unfamiliar to me but which I still feel I should make a priority.

The results have been as amazing as they have been immediate. These prayers first thing in the morning have so far really changed how I go about my days. I feel a noticeably stronger sense of peace at most times during the day. Now, it feels inappropriate to me to discuss feeeeeeeeelings because they can't be weighed, measured, quantified or even reliably reproduced. What I feel to be a sense of peace relative to my usual state could be a heightened sense of anxiety for some people or a horse tranquilizer for others.

Still, I have to acknowledge that there is room for an individual's personal experience in this. I'm usually reluctant to discuss these things in public though because my fear is being lumped in with those Emerging Church types. Still, I can't really discuss the efficacy of formalized prayer as practiced by the Catholic Church without mentioning my own personal experience with it. So please don't take this as the Emergent brand of oohey-gooey "spirituality" I so detest.

Now, I can't speak for anybody else but I at least don't get to make decisions on my own. Nope. Invariably I have to deal with a committee of rubes, pretenders and pseudo-intellectuals telling me why I'm wrong, hopeless, misguided, heretical or whatever else about anything I choose to do. Be it choices made in my professional life, love life, schooling, hobbies, choice of friends or anything else, there'll always be some jackass who just can't wait to tell me why I'm wrong.

In the case of Catholicism, it's an evangelical with some severely goofed up theology. We'll call him "Donald Bell". On the one hand, "Donald Bell" is a member in exceedingly good standing of a Southern Baptist church. On the other hand, his views and theology owe far more to the aforementioned Emerging Church brand of spiritual pap.

A great many of our conversations regarding religion that don't involve anti-Catholic myths and canards tend to revolve around the false dichotomy of formalized prayer vs. the pure heart and soul of (supposedly) non-liturgical forms of Christianity.

In the first place, I've come to realize that every brand of Christianity has some kind of liturgy. In a sense, what really separates the Catholics from the Baptists is that the Church is willing to put their liturgy in writing while the Southern Baptist Convention is not.

In the second place though, as I said, it's a false dichotomy. The mere fact that some Catholics "go through the motions" of formalized prayer tells me they don't understand the formalization or the prayer. That can't accurately be said of the Church at large though:

2700 Through his Word, God speaks to man. By words, mental or vocal, our prayer takes flesh. Yet it is most important that the heart should be present to him to whom we are speaking in prayer: "Whether or not our prayer is heard depends not on the number of words, but on the fervor of our souls."
-- Catechism of the Catholic Church

Mind you, that doesn't keep "Donald Bell" from leveling the accusation. But it simply isn't true. Further, it assumes that there's no room for extemporaneous prayer, which is just ignorant.

The other thing though, and again this relies on my personal experience, there's simply no comparison between my prayer life now and my prayer life as a Southern Baptist. To be fair, I've only committed to morning prayers over the last week or thereabouts so it's a pretty lopsided comparison. Still, the formal prayer schedule has been easy to abide by and spiritually beneficial for me. "Donald Bell" has frequently said (in approved Emerging Church fashion, I'm certain) that "nobody can argue with personal experience".

I'm very well aware of how anemic my prayer life was before I joined the Catholic Church. As much as I came to admire the Anglican church during 2013, all they really did was change how I viewed my worship. It was a radical change, to be sure, but it wasn't the complete spiritual tune-up I've gotten from the Catholic Church. As a Southern Baptist, prayer was usually what I did during moments of stress and crisis, or else it was done as I was falling asleep each night. Now it's become a vital and indispensable part of my spiritual life.

That's MY personal experience so by his own logic, which should be checkmate with "Donald Bell".

But I doubt it will be.

More to follow.

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.