Pope Francis and the Media

Crazy times. That's partly the reason for the lack of updates.

The other thing though is there hasn't been a whole lot to say lately. But there have been a few interesting developments. A couple.

For one thing, my firm belief is the American leftwing media had no real choice but to show admiration for Pope John Paul II. He reigned for nearly thirty years, he was instrumental in the undoing of a major American enemy and he oversaw the implementations of major parts of Vatican II.

I won't discuss Vatican II, you understand. That's above my paygrade as an Inquirer. I'm just talking about Blessed John Paul II's legacy here and why the leftie media had some sympathies for him.

So they HAD to show admiration for him, especially on the occasion of his death. Even the leftie media aren't (or weren't) of such poor taste that they'd bash too much on him after his passing. Their rank and file sure did (check archives of their blogs and news article comments; it was the most ugly viciousness you can imagine) but the media themselves didn't.

And among liberals, some of the grief may well have even been sincere. I saw a picture of former-President Bill Clinton standing next to then current President George W. Bush. President Bush looked serious and solemn while Clinton looked completely overcome. Put another way, you could tell that Clinton had pretty much lost it over Pope John Paul's death. So if he was upset about it, I'll allow others might've been as well.

Pope Benedict XVI was an easier target for their abuse and vitriol. He was more of a traditionalist in some of his views, he was clearly not going to somehow change the Church's more aggravating policies (aggravating to liberals, that is) and all around I think the only reason he didn't have an even worse time is because President Bush was a much more interesting target. But under other circumstances, I shudder to think how the media might've treated Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is different. Or different to liberals anyway. They fell in love with him because of the perception that he was friendly to liberal pet cause, even though he CAN'T change the Church's teachings regarding female clergy, abortions, same-sex unions and other things.

Everything is politics to the media. Add to that a fondness for deifying human beings as well as a complete ignorance of how the Catholic Church operates and you've got a recipe for them to believe that Pope Francis would be the answers to their prayers if they believed in prayer. They believe that, why, the right Pope at the right time could drag this old fuddy-duddy institution into the modern day, ordain female clergy, bless same-sex unions, permit abortions and other liberal sacraments.

This delusion comes in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

But now the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place. Pope Francis has said time and again that he cannot and will not "change" the Church's teachings about whatever the liberals are going nuts about this week.

On top of that, top Vatican officials are echoing the Holy Father's remarks.

"[President Obama] appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies. Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S."
-- Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke
(Source- http://washingtonexaminer.com/cardinal-burke-criticizes-obamas-anti-life-and-anti-family-policies-ahead-of-vatican-visit/article/2546191

Maybe the leftie media will be content to continue living in Liberal La-La Land about this. Maybe they'll take possibly the most scathing criticism the Vatican has ever made against an American President's policies in my lifetime lying down. I admit it could totally happen.

I just doubt it will.

No, I think this will be the beginning of the end of the American liberal media's love affair with Pope Francis. Sooner or later (sooner, I always thought), they'd realize that Pope Francis hasn't "changed" anything, the Church's policies remain as they always were, Pope Francis is unapologetically maintaining the faith as it has been handed down for millennia and he's not the superhero/reformer he was first thought to be by the American media. The above quote from Burke may be their wake up call.

After that, my hunch is that the only thing that might save Pope Francis from being totally pilloried in the media will be his ethnicity. They may be slightly reluctant to bash too much on the first South American Pope in history. But maybe even that won't be enough.

Now, to address a little conspiracy that's made the rounds, a lot of people think the media have simply adopted Pope Francis as a posterboy specifically to create chaos and disunity in the Church. If the media love Francis, surely that'll tick off the conservatives and traditionalists in the Church, which is precisely what the media want. That may irreparably harm Pope Francis and his pontificate. If that happens, if the conservatives turn on a Pope perceived by the media to be more friendly to liberal wackadoo causes, mission accomplished!

Personally, I don't buy that. That would require the leftwing media to realize how most people view them, and that's something they're fundamentally unwilling to do. They have to believe not only that they're the smartest people in the room but that everyone else believes that too. So this theory that they're intentionally causing problems doesn't work for me because it would require the liberal media to acknowledge things about themselves they've historically been unwilling to acknowledge.

No, being as they tend to view the Catholic Church as just another political organization that can change direction if enough pressure is applied, they've genuinely taken Pope Francis to heart... which is why hell will have no fury greater than theirs when they realize Pope Francis is just another Pope who can't and won't "change" the Church's teachings about anything.

THAT is when the claws will come out and I suspect we aren't too far away from that happening.

More to follow.

Non-Denominational Stupidity

The older I get, the more I hold groups like the Southern Baptists, Lutherans and others in absolute disdain. I consider the best of them schismatic and the worst heretical. But I can at least must some intellectual respect for them for having a Statement of Faith (because calling it a "Catechism" would be bad). They have doctrines and theology. Occasionally goofy and incoherent theology, yes, but they have it. And that's worth something.

What I CAN'T respect is the non-denominational crowd. To use an analogy, everybody has gotten themselves sucked into a political discussion at work or a group of casual acquaintances or whoever. And without exception there's always some hipster dillhole in the group who wants to position himself as a free-thinking maverick and so he announces that he's an "independent", both main parties suck and he's the ONLY one in the room with all the answers.

That's who non-denominationalists are. They're religious independents.

Now, say whatever you want about the Southern Baptists (I've said quite a lot about them, much of which isn't very flattering) but they at least have the stones to put their core beliefs on paper. There's some amount of conviction to that. It takes courage and intellectual candor to do that. So at least on that basis, I can admire them. I can't admire them about much else but at least they're not too chicken to tell you what they believe.

By definition non-denominationalists can't do that because they're almost as bad as the Disciples of Christ when it comes to theological disunity. Their parishioners are at the mercy of whoever the lead pastor of their local church is. Whatever he believes, implicitly they believe too. But when they find a new pastor with maybe different views, I assume the parishioners will change their views too.

So by definition you can't ever say what the non-denominationalists believe because they're anything but monolithic. And because of that, they never have to take the risks of unchangeably putting their beliefs on the record. That means they're perfectly free to criticize what everybody else does but can escape criticism (or even curious inquiry).

Compare that to the Catholic Church, where, love us or hate us, EVERYBODY knows what we teach about a lot of things and nothing ever gets magically reinvented just because we have a new Pope. The Church's core teachings, beliefs, doctrines and creeds are evident (explicitly or implicitly) starting with the early church going right on through 2,000 years later to today. Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that new non-denominational Independent Fellowship of Faith will be here even fifty years from now, much less 2,000.

To all you non-denominationalists and "independents" out there: Grow a sack and pick a side already.

For everybody else: I thought I'd lived through my share of weird experiences in life but I, a Catholic, was once called "divisive" by a non-denominationalist. Just let that sink in for a minute.

More to follow.

The Universe Has A Starting Point

There's been a lot of bizarre triumphalism about discoveries regarding the big bang theory lately. The following examples were all copied from Facebook:

---
and there goes adam and eve, and the best selling fiction novel in history "the bible." Science dont lie but people do, and over the years humans have evolved to become amazing bullshiters guess martin luther made bulls***ing a career since he was not smart enough to be a scientist nor nothing more than a peasant..its like obama taking advice from people off skid row
---
Some day one of the last remaining bibles will sit in a Museum of history somewhere and people will marvel at how their ancestors worshipped it's fictional stories the way we do the ancient greeks and egyptians.
---
I love science. Big bang theory ftw. Its ok religion you can take a rest now. Let the big kids handle this!
---
Sorry creationists, but scientists just found the "smoking gun" that shows how the Big Bang happened.
---

There are other examples I could cite but I doubt any of them are any more qualified to follow every single detail of recent discoveries than the above knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, anti-religious zealots are.

I'm not saying I follow every single nuance of recent big bang discoveries myself, you understand. Far from it. The difference though is (A) I admit it and (B) I'm calling other people out for pretending to have an expertise I suspect is sadly lacking if their rambling, semi-conscious Facebook posts are anything to judge by. Why, you might say I'm observing and interpreting evidence to formulate my conclusion. But enough of this heavy "science" stuff I know will only confuse them.

Now, you might doubt me on the above. If you do, ask ANY of the sudden big bang cheerleaders to explain cosmic microwave background light and the role that played in this recent discovery with emphasis on inflation.

Yeah, let me know how that goes.

Anyway, ultimately the principle of the big bang theory is this: the universe had a beginning. Really, that's it. It's that simple. Yes, there are nuanced and intricate analyses to be made, many of which are kind of interesting to some people. But ultimately that's what the big bang theory tells us. The universe had some kind of starting point.

Since it's been singled out, I feel I should say that Christianity has acknowledged that much from the get-go. It should be noted that it was "mainstream science" that was uncomfortable with the universe having a solid starting point rather than perpetual existence favored by most of the scientific community precisely because of what might be implied about Who exactly lit the fuse of the big bang. Religious people who understand the simple principle of the big bang theory (ie, the universe didn't exist one moment but then did the next moment) weren't and aren't uncomfortable with the proposition. It was "mainstream science" that took a lot of convincing on the matter.

And eventually (at gunpoint, against their will, as a last resort and only when all other options failed) mainstream science ultimately did acquiesce and accept simple fact.

So all the non-believers and anti-religious bigots doing end zone dances right now? They're the same ones a century ago who would've been horrified at the very discoveries and theories they're now shouting with glee from the rooftops.

Even so, I'm prepared to be the bigger man in this case. And so I'd like to thank the science-denying, non-believing, anti-religious whackjobs for putting aside their pride (not to mention over a century of resistance to progress) and agreeing with my God, my prophets, my holy text and me in our shared belief that the universe had a firm starting point. Better late than never, guys!

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-- Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Considering the Disciples of Christ

There was a point back in 2003 and 2004 when I was constantly being invited to go to church with my family. I usually resisted because I was, shall we say, estranged from the Lord at the time. The reasons for that are too long to get into here but, to put it in evangelical terms, I was "out of fellowship".

Now and then though, I would attend their church. The main reason for that was to get them off my crank about it. When I was back in fellowship though, I knew I had to go to church somewhere. And their church seemed as good as anything so I visited a few times. And it didn't last.

I was extremely raw in and new to the faith at the time so I couldn't have put it into words then but I can now. Specifically I thought the entire thing was an incoherent mess theologically and intellectually.

It was a Disciples of Christ church.

Now, I was raised Church of Christ. I'm very familiar with a lot of their core beliefs and that's why it was so shocking to discover that the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ were originally one and the same. And, in typical Church of Christ fashion, they split apart over instrumentation.

Right about the time of the split back in the late 1960's, the Disciples of Christ threw in with the liberal wing of Protestantism and pretty much joined up with the No Creed But Christ crowd. Basically all you need to do is affirm Christ as your Lord and Savior. Everything else, and I DO mean everything else, is on the table to believe or not believe as you see fit.

If you want to believe that Christ had a human father or that He never performed miracles or that He never rose from the dead or that He's one of millions of options to go to Heaven or whatever else, you totally can. They have no statement of faith, no catechism and they don't subscribe to any of the historic creeds. You need only confess Christ as Lord and Savior.

I wouldn't have been able to put it into words at the time but THAT was what turned me off even though I barely knew anything about what I believed after I started believing. But, then as now, I see it as a very big problem. If a group has no doctrinal unity, they're "united" in name only. Irrespective of which other Christian tradition someone may come from, they generally recognize (or be convinced about) the importance of a coherent catechism or statement of faith or SOMETHING to ensure that all members are more or less on the same page with one another.

This fosters REAL unity. And the Disciples of Christ denomination wants nothing to do with it. To them, I assume that a cookie-cutter Calvinist is welcome to sit next to a disciple of Jack Spong in harmonious "unity".

It's not surprising they can barely scrape together more than half a million members. With so much theological dissonance, I'd expect most of their parishioners can barely tolerate one another's presence. I mean, say whatever you want about the Emerging Church, at least they worked out a means to attract young people (for now). The Disciples of Christ can barely keep their membership numbers intact. But not to worry! They're not divisive! Their only creed is Christ!

Yeah, how's that working out for you?

More to follow.

End Timey Stuff (and Why I Don't Talk Much About It)

Apart from critiquing someone else's wack beliefs, I've not commented much on End Times stuff. There's a good reason for that too. Very frankly, End Time study never much interested me even when I was a fire-breathing evangelical. I've always been far more interested in history than sketchy predictions about the future drawn mostly from out-of-context Scriptural passages.

Still, even I recognize the need to have a firm opinion on the subject. That's because I believe God's Word should be studied in full rather than reading only the Psalms and Gospels one likes best. And, yes, that includes the apocalyptic stuff like the relevant sections of Daniel and a good bit of Revelation.

On top of that, back when I taught a small group at Southern Baptist Church #1, I had to teach End Times stuff on two and a half occasions so it behooved me to study the various viewpoints out there and formulate my opinion.

Before I get into that though, I want to be clear in saying I generally don't view a strong interest in End Timey subjects as a negative. If I learned nothing else as a small group teacher, it's that different things motivate different peoples' faith.

For some, the birth of Our Lord, His self-identification with lowly, fallen man is the foundation of their belief. For others, maybe His suffering and death on the cross, the promise of mercy and forgiveness no matter how they've sinned, is what underlies their faith. For some others, it could be that the study of history and discovering the TRUTH of Christianity is what persuades them, as in my case. For still others, it's probable that the guarantee of judgment and the threat of hell is how they came to faith. And, I suppose related to that, there is the crowd who study the Scriptures to ferret out details about how everything is brought to a conclusion.

My point is that one group isn't somehow "wrong" for being motivated by different things than someone else. There's room for everybody!

That all said, I do think some people go WAY too far with it. If somebody were to need me to quantify this to them and explain why that is, odds are they're one of them and nothing I can say will change their mind.

So like I said, everybody has their religious preference. Mine is no better or worse than someone else's. So no matter which side you come down on, don't take this as me bashing on the End Time crowd.

Okay, so that should be enough CYA for me. My basic view is fairly traditional partial Preterism. Again, history guy, remember? It's easier for me to convince myself that the majority of the predictions Our Lord made have already come to pass than I can believe that somehow all world political power, religious influence, economics and everything else will somehow return to Rome. That's not to say that all those things can't or won't happen. Preterism explicitly permits things to have some type of future duplicated fulfillment. For all I know (and am willing to put on the record), they very well may happen "again" in the future. But as I see it, events in history already satisfy most of the requirements made in those prophecies. Not much more needs to be added.

Now, the main reason I bring all this up is because I've been asked about End Time stuff on many occasions. Generally when people found out that I taught the Bible at SB Church #1, sooner or later End Time stuff, Marks of Beasts, Raptures and other stuff would become a topic of conversation. I guess I was supposed to have access to special information that nobody else has or something.

Generally I was greeted by looks of borderline disappointment when I informed the inquirer that the orthodox view for most of Christianity's history has been Preterism, that's the viewpoint I tend to favor so I don't see much point in keeping an eye out for False Prophets or what have you in our lifetimes. Again, for all I know, it COULD happen "again"; I simply don't think it NEEDS to.

What, then, are we to do? How are we to live? Obey the Church's teachings, partake of the Sacraments, study ALL of Scripture (including the "scary" parts), pray and let God work His plan on His schedule.

It's all you can do.

More to follow.

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.