Catching Up On My Catholic Year

So. Started RCIA. Night One was on Thursday, January 9. Pretty eye-opening, actually. Not "informative" so much since I'd already discovered all or most of that stuff on my own. But informative more from the angle of the "culture" of Catholicism. That is new. The Catechists talked about Pope Francis a fair bit and what I eventually understood is that they view him the same basic way that a lot of Southern Baptists view the lead pastor at their churches. That is to say the spiritual leader and authority. Admittedly it's not a perfect comparison but it's the best I've got. It never really soaked through until then because I didn't really understand the concept. But it makes more sense now.

I figured most of my fellow Inquirers would be coming at this from more or less the same background as me. However, I was shown to be wrong. If I learned nothing else on that first night, it's that these people have all kinds of backgrounds. Two of the chicks come from Buddhist backgrounds but for everyone else it's the ABC's of Christianity as you might expect. I mention all of this though to say that what surprised me was how diverse the group was. Not just ethnically (although that too) but in terms of peoples' lives and stuff. The Catholic Church is not a homogenized institution by any stretch.

Something else though. Weeks ago, I dug deeper and researched the split that took place in the Episcopal Church USA that basically gave us the Anglican Church in North America and in particular how it affected the membership numbers for both institutions. I reached the conclusion that, by membership numbers, the schism hasn't benefited ECUSA or ACNA.

And that didn't make much sense because the sheer number of churches that split off from ECUSA should've made ACNA an overnight religious force to be reckoned with. I mean, it's just simple numbers, you know? But that's not what happened. ACNA's growth has moved at a snail's pace. It just mystified me. But either way, and as I said before, you can stick a fork in Anglicanism in America; it's done. I just couldn't understand why.

Well, RCIA Night 1 gave me at least part of the answer. Sure, a lot of parishes and even entire dioceses split off from ECUSA. That's been happening for at least a decade'ish. Maybe longer. But not all have moved to ACNA or one of the other Anglican schism groups.

Nope, a fair number of whole parishes joined up with Rome. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI at different times set up an ordinariate to accommodate Anglican clergy and, if necessary, their parishes. If even 20% of disgruntled Episcopal Church parishes have joined up with Rome, that would tend to account for why ACNA's growth has been so relatively anemic. It seems I incorrectly linked dropping out of ECUSA with joining up with ACNA. Looks like a fair number of Episcopal parishes and clergy washed their hands of Canterbury entirely.

The Catechist then said that the ordinariate for my city is headquartered directly out of the Catholic parish at which I was attending RCIA. As a matter of fact, they have apartments on-site for priests, seminarians and other clergy to live in. And soon they'll have to build more apartments because Anglican clergy are joining the Catholic Church... and the married ones are bringing their families along. And this was where the aforementioned pontiffs had to take an active hand. Normally, as a religious discipline, the Church doesn't allow married people to be clergy. Simple as that. So those Popes had to set up an ordinariate specifically to deal with incoming married Episcopalian clergy.

And these clergy are apparently still allowed to be distinctly Anglican. They're permitted to hang on to their Anglican customs. The main difference is they're in communion with Rome now. But otherwise they're still "Anglican" in terms of their customs.

This all seemed really messed up to me. Frankly, I had a hard time believing any of it so I decided to check it out. And sure enough, a quick web search revealed this very thing is indeed happening and seems to at least partly account for why ACNA hasn't taken off the why I thought the number of ECUSA evacuations would have implied.

The common thread through a lot of the ECUSA dropouts finding refuge in Rome is that these Episcopalians/Anglicans were happy where they were so long as progress was being made (however slowly) to some kind of reconciliation with Rome. But when it became obvious that reunification was off the table (as ECUSA is all in for ordaining women, homosexuals and who the hell knows what else is coming), these priests and even entire parishes had to deal with matters on their own. And apparently they would sooner tempt their fates in Rome than with a breakaway wing of Anglicanism.

Of all people, I understand.

And to be fair to these refugees, ACNA isn't in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So these ECUSA washouts faced a dilemma: They couldn't stay in ECUSA but they obviously didn't feel right about joining up with ACNA either. So what the hell other option is there, you know?

All of this is a *VERY* long way of saying that I'd always assumed that the Catholic Church is a fairly monolithic institution, both in terms of membership and of religious practice. Turns out they're a lot more flexible than I ever gave them credit for.

Incidentally, this has also inspired me to e-mail the rector of my old ACNA parish to let him know about the ordinariate as he may not have heard. I love and respect him even now and it would be a joy to see him every Sunday again.

But anyway. There are some complications with all this though. Minor ones but still. For one thing, they want to see my baptism certificate. Normally I'd be willing to comply with that... except I don't have one. Because one never existed to my knowledge. See, I was baptized by my grandfather when I was 16 AT a Church of Christ but not BY that Church of Christ. So if I had to "document" my baptism, I wouldn't be able to.

Not that it matters anyway because that Church of Christ no longer exists in the form which I attended as a kid. There was a split in the congregation, and of all things it was over musical instruments in the church. The Churches of Christ teach that instrumentation is badevilwickednastynobueno.

That's been settled policy for them for decades so why it suddenly flared up in my town is beyond me. Anyway, but apparently the pro-instrument people won because what's left of the Church of Christ from my childhood is now located in some rundown old shack in a dumpy part of town as opposed to the original building.

So even if there was a baptism certificate for me at one time, methinks it's not on file anymore anyway. And this doesn't touch on how I'm suddenly not sure how canonically valid my baptism is because I'm starting to think of the Churches of Christ as a cult.

What I'm driving at here is that I think it might be necessary for the Catholics to do what they call a "conditional baptism", which basically says "If you were baptized before, you're only getting wet right now. But if you weren't baptized before, you're baptized now".

Since I'm here, may as well talk about RCIA Night Two. Basically the original group from the first night consisted of a total of 13 people. Four men and the rest were women. Going from memory, the numbers for the second week were down one man and two women.

People who know a lot more about this stuff than I do assure me the numbers will probably continue dwindling, either through lack of commitment or an unwillingness to obey the Church's teachings.

And to be honest, I think this is where all the study I did before even joining RCIA will pay off because I've already resolved my problems with the Church's most challenging doctrines. My agenda is to join the Church at this point rather than be persuaded that the Catholic Church is right.

I already know the Catholic Church is right.

Celebrating the 500th Anniversary of Schism and Rebellion

*sigh*

Lutherans and Catholics bury the hatchet for Reformation’s 500th.

So let me get this straight. We'll just set aside how Martin Luther kickstarted the movement that's led millions of people into heresy because this is the five-hundredth anniversary of when he did so.

Yeah, seems legit.

Full disclosure- I'm very much an either or, black or white thinker. It's the rare question that has multiple correct answers. Either the Catholic Church is the way to salvation and those who rebel against her authority are heretics OR Martin Luther was absolutely right about every problem he had with church authority. Either or. One or the other.

I see no middle-ground on this.

This isn't to say nothing good came from the Reformation. Far from it, in fact. Luther's rebellion led to the Council of Trent where several of his grievances were addressed. Oddly enough, considering what I said above, it's not as simple a matter that Luther was right about everything he said or he was wrong about everything. The Church eventually concluded that he was factually correct about some of his points.

The issue though is that he was inexcusably wrong when he rebelled against the Pope's authority and leadership. His issues could've been worked out had he given the system a chance. He didn't. Instead he led an uprising in defiance of the Church's God-given authority.

I see nothing there worth celebrating. In fact, the anniversary is no small source of anger for me since I was sucked in my Protestant crap for most of my life.

My Catholic Year Fail

As I said before, Wednesday marked the beginning of My Catholic Year. Obviously it was a Holy Day of Obligation (The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) so I planned to attend Mass. That was the plan but not exactly what ended up happening.

Basically I mixed up times because I looked at the wrong web page. The parish I wanted to go to had already finished their services for the day by the time I showed up.

So yeah, that was a fail.

The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and Marriage Chaos in Utah

Today marks the beginning of My Catholic Year. And as it happens, today's a Holy Day of Obligation (The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) so I'll be going to Mass later.

Still, between my illness and all this holiday craziness, I haven't had a chance to comment on the state of marriage in Utah. First "homosexual marriage" was legalized there followed swiftly thereafter by the effective decriminalization of polygamy.

For years, those who favor the traditional definition of marriage argued that permitting "gay marriage" would eventually lead to a full-scale destruction of marriage. After all, if marriage can be something other than one man and one woman, why can't it be anything at all? The gay lobby constantly shouted my side down, called us paranoid rightwingers and denounced the efficacy and usefulness of slippery slope arguments.

Strangely enough though, they've all been very silent about goings on in Utah lately. A simple oversight, I'm sure.

Reaching Out to the Rad Trads

January 1, 2014 is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, and that marks the official start of My Catholic Year. My RCIA begins on January 9. Truth is I'm thrilled about both. Can't wait. This feels like the culmination of something I've been searching for my entire life. And now I've found it.

What I've already learned through this experience though is that if you ever want to seriously torque people off, tell 'em you're converting to Catholicism. Some of my friends and family have expressed support for my decision. Others have been outright derisive and snarky.

In an odd moment of cognitive dissonance, a non-denominationalist went so far as to call me "divisive". If that statement doesn't seem odd, ironic or funny to you, reread it until it does.

The one thing NOBODY has said though is "you're doing the right thing". And this includes even some Catholics I am friends with and/or related to.

You see, Pope Francis has been quite divisive among some Catholics I know. And if you're Catholic yourself, doubtless you've run into this very thing yourself. So no embellishment seems necessary. Still, the group the Holy Father seems to have alienated the most is the radical traditionalists.

Now, just to establish my theological and political bona fides, it's not so much that I'm on the right as it is that I AM the right. I'm everything your average seculiberathiest most fears. My answer to every political and economic problem the country faces is "privatize it". My answer to every social/moral problem the country faces is "no".

I am the right.

And yet Pope Francis offends me not. Partly it's because I'm very well aware of the supposed news media's love for misquoting any religious figure, especially a Pope. If they can stir enough controversy, why, they just might be able to cause a schism in the Church! You may think that's far-fetched but keep in mind they've toppled some Presidents while singlehandedly keeping others in power. Nothing is off limits to them.

But the radical traditionalists, already predisposed to have a dim view of Pope Francis, have accepted the media narrative without question. And in a lot of ways it's not my business to second guess the rad trads. Most of them were elbow-deep in the Catholic Church before I was even born. So I'm NOT criticizing them. But I'm not accepting their premise either.

And for all the reasons they championed Pope Benedict XVI. Specifically, they asked a series of questions. Do you believe this is the church Our Lord founded? Do you believe the Pope is His vicar? Do you believe the Church is divinely guided and supernaturally protected from error? Does the Holy Father's authority come from on high or from men?

Do you believe it?

I'm either the very worst person to ask the rad trads those questions or I'm the very best. Eye of the beholder. But speaking as a former Protestant, former evangelical, former Anglican and former Anglo-Catholic, if I can accept Pope Francis, can't you?