An Aid To Memory

My (as of today, "former") parish is in the news today. My Episcopal priest has resigned following the threat of canonical action from the diocese. I have enjoyed my time at this parish, and cherish the time I have spent under Fr. Rick’s pastoral care. I have enjoyed the company of his family, and wish them well. Many people at there have been strong witnesses to the gospel, and have stood for this against even a well-funded and aggresive Diocese. Even though my calling is to the Catholic Church, I still prayerfully support whatever Fr. Rick chooses to do. I will even regularly visit some worship services wherever he starts up.

This parish is the victim of a big business, not a Christian diocese. The Diocese has decided that the only way to promote peace, unity, harmony, and inclusivity is to crack down hard and swift on any parish that might even begin to dissent. And what is the collateral damage of such a crack-down? The destruction of one of its own parishes. There were probably 10 members (and even then only 5 of these were active in good standing) who conspired against the parish’s choice to join the Network. And since all of these are retired, they had plenty of free-time to work their deeds (I made a comment on a meeting I attended with this group here).  In a few months, the parish will become just another ECUSA parish: declining, gray-haired, empty, and unable to pay its bills, save an endowment. Those who wanted Fr. Rick kicked out have gotten their wish, and as time passes they will find out what that means. However, I must ask both the Diocese and those who have helped drive Fr. Rick out…Can you have an assembly if nobody assembles there?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072805.html

The above-linked articles suggests that Catholics (at least the ones who hold to Church teachings) have been purposely excluded from Democrat affairs lately. Has the Democratic Party been hijacked by hyper-liberal ideologues? Will there come a time when Catholics no longer vote Democrat because the party refuses to welcome those who share the Church’s views on abortion and gay marriage?

It’s hard to tell. I will issue a word of warning though. Many of us would be Democrat in a second if the issue of abortion (and to a degree, the support of gay marriage) wasn’t made a litmus test of Democratic orthodoxy. The Democratic party needs to be very careful as they move more and more leftward on various social issues, because they will cease being the party that cares about the goals and dreams of the average person. My observation is that if the Republican Party is the party of wealthy businessmen, then the Democratic Party is quickly becoming the party of wealthy Academics. And with these facts about our two-party system, nothing is more appropriate than making the sign of the cross (or perhaps a good kyrie eleison).

As many of you know, I will be received into the Catholic Church on August 14th, which is (at least in the US) the vigil of the Feast of the Assumption / Dormition of the Blessed Virgin. Western Christians might take some pause at the word “Dormition” used here, because the feast in the Western Church is called the “Assumption.” This highlights something I as a Western Christian have had to face as I journey into the Catholic Church from Anglicanism: the Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Eastern Catholics) matter!

Before converting to the Catholic Church, I considered Eastern Orthodoxy as an option, and there was really nothing theological getting in the way of my becoming Orthodox. The reasons were more geographical and cultural: the lack of an Orthodox church for miles (I live in a rural area), and the ethnocentrism I encountered at the Orthodox churches that are within a semi-reasonable driving distance. Otherwise, I might have become Orthodox (please keep in mind that the Western Church has cultural issues as well). Either way I have a great respect for and love of the Eastern Churches. Recent papal decrees have emphasized the importance of “breathing with both lungs,” that is without both Eastern and Western expressions of the Christian faith, we as the Church of Christ are only breathing at “half-capacity” so-to-speak, and are only worse-off for it. In Orientale Lumen, John Paul II called Catholics to task when he said, “a conversion is…required of the Latin Church,” … “that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern Christians.” By this he means both Eastern Catholics (those Eastern Churches currently in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox (not in communion with Rome, but from the Catholic Church’s standpoint, legitimate Churches). As I have been reading various forums around the net I am utterly amazed how many Western Catholics know absolutely nothing about our Eastern brothers and sisters, and how, very often, these Churches are denigrated as being second-class. Many Catholics, despite Vatican II and the recent papal decrees of John Paul II, still are very unhelpful in the way they view Eastern Orthodox Christians, and even strangely, Eastern Catholics, with whom they are in full communion (some Eastern Christians abhor the West as well; unfortunately the animosity and ignorance can go both ways). I guess at this point I don’t think we are breathing too well, as many refuse to even allow themselves to be educated about Eastern Christianity. Hopefully as time passes, we can breathe steadier and more deeply as East and West (we pray) move closer to full communion. I have made it a personal goal of mine (and on the webpages I run, Ancient-Future.Net and ChurchYear.Net) to always include the Eastern perspective. This includes, of course, using Eastern and Western terms, and working to clearly explain the Eastern viewpoint, especially when their thought differs from Western conceptions. Please check out these various Eastern Church links, and explore their rich heritage:

Eastern Church Links- Catholic and Eastern Church Relations
Byzantine Catholic Links- Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Resources
Greek Orthodox Church in America
Orthodox Church in America
Mutual Misunderstandings- An excellent site dealing with mutual misunderstandings Catholics and Orthodox have.
A (little) Light from the East- An Eastern Catholic Blog

I have been forced to examine my own personal theological beliefs over the last few years, because of events within the Anglican Communion. I usually think theologically, but somewhere around March of 2004 I began to question my concept of the nature of churches. I guess I made many assumptions (whether explicitly or unconsciously) about the way churches just are. Looking back, these were false, and I had to “get over” these in order to be where I am now, knocking at the door of the Catholic Church. This list is not exhaustive, nor is this intended to put down non-Catholic churches. Rather this is an honest look at my faulty assumptions, many of which I falsely assumed were true even about Protestant churches.

1. Being at Odds with Your Leaders Is a Fact of Life
Growing up Methodist and then becoming Anglican, I always believed that we true believers were always going to be at odds with our leaders, and I even developed great interest (maybe even a joy!) in preserving the fight. And while fighting for the gospel is indeed admirable, fighting as a way of life within one’s church (when there are traditional churches down the road) is a pity. Of course I do worry that after many years of constant posturing I might feel like an old soldier who knows nothing but battle. But thankfully I am ready for less rocky days where I can simply focus on spreading the gospel.

2. You Find a Church That Agrees With You, Not Vice-Versa
I have heard people say (even in huge metro areas), “I would attend church, but I can’t find one that has the truth.” In other words, rather than submitting to the teachings of a consensus of persons, many of us looked for places that would consent to one individual’s idea of the truth. I had to eventually learn that I was hindering my spiritual growth to simply remain in a church because on paper in the late 1800s they seemed to get it right (think Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism). I have (after much prayer and education) finally come to the point where I can assent to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, but I started out skeptical and had to submit to something greater than myself.

3. Christianity is Primarily About Rational Assent to Beliefs
This was a biggie for me, even though in theory I would have agreed that Christianity is more than something rational. Community and spiritual discipline seemed to hardly matter, whereas beliefs on paper were all-important. I came to realize that spiritual discipline and community matter quite highly, and orthopraxis (e.g. confession, moral standards, respecting others) is just as important as orthodoxy. Recent events in the Anglican Communion have shown me that morality does matter. And as for my personal spiritual growth, even the prospect of confession has caused me to examine my life in a way I have never had to.

4. Churches Don’t Have Young People
This may sound weird, but after going to various Episcopal churches in the last four years, I finally came to the conclusion that young people just don’t go to church very much, and as sad as this is, I thought it was a fact of life. I had a kind of awakening at a joint choir event at a Lutheran church. The Catholics and Episcopalians had a joint choir. I knew which people in the choir were Episcopalians by their robes, and because I had attended that church frequently in the past. There were about 5 Episcopal choir members, all over 50. The Catholic choir has around 25 and had people of all ages and economic backgrounds. There is one Catholic and one Episcopal church in the county, yet the Episcopal church is empty. I began to see the importance of the Church as a community, one that is universal.

5. Liturgical Churches Only Appeal to Educated People
I used to think liturgy only appeals to educated people, and while I thought this was horrible, I just accepted that mostly educated upper-middle class people get something out of liturgical worship. Eventually I changed my mind and looked at Catholic and Orthodox churches, which are hardly filled with only educated people. I realized that I have been in churches, which on account of their moral and political stands, have alienated themselves from most people. I am extremely happy to be in a church where working class meets business class.

6. The Laity Will Rise Up When the Leaders Get Too Crazy
I used to think that when the non-Christian hierarchy of many mainline Protestant churches goes too far, the laity will rise up en masse and reassert Christianity. After the consecration of Gene Robinson, the reaction even among conservatives was pretty much “business as usual.” There seemed to be, as one minister put it, a “co-dependency with the leadership.” Of course, see my assumption number one, on why I can understand why some have chosen not to fight.

7. I Would Never Find A Woman Who Shares My Beliefs
Again, this may sound weird. However, think back to #4. Remember that Evangelicalism and Protestantism are very broad terms. My former church, the Episcopal church, only has 800,000 regular worshippers on a given Sunday, and most of these people are married and/or over 50. I just assumed that anybody I met in a romantic way would have disagreed with me on many religious issues (even if she was Christian), so it was best to not worry too much about religious compatability when looking for love. Of course I found this to lead to serious trouble. But once again, that assumption was not true of all churches.

These are a few of the assumptions I used to have. Maybe you have some of these? Maybe different ones? It is amazing though how even though we change churches or beliefs that our fundamental assumptions remain the same, and are what really hinder us from finding our way.

I will be received into the Catholic Church on August 14th, along with my brother. That day, the vigil of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, I will also do my first confession. I just found out today and am excited about this. I feel as if I have spent a lot of time fighting about Church issues for the last year, and am wearied, but hopeful that better things lie ahead. I am thankful to God to find a Church home. The scene in today’s photo is a fitting symbol of the peace and serenity I feel today. Thanks be to God.

I have decided to see what Typepad is all about. I have been having issues with Blogger and their templates (most of which don’t seem to work too well on Explorer, which while not fully standards compliant, is still the most popular browser). I got a good deal on Typepad’s basic service, and my name up in lights in the domain, so let’s see what happens!

I am on a 30-day trial offer, so if this isn’t worth the money, maybe I’ll go back to Blogger. Either way, I apologize for moving so much, but finding a blog home has not been easy.

Bob Dylan wrote this for his The Times They Are A Changin album. I owned it for years and don’t remember hearing this song too often. It’s on his fairly new 1975 live CD, and it made me interested again. It’s a reminder of why the Church gets involved in issues of justice. This is a true story of a rich plantation owner who killed a black servant in 1963 because she brought him his drink too slowly.

—-
William Zanzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll
With a cane that he twirled around his diamond ring finger
At a Baltimore hotel society gath’rin’.
And the cops were called in and his weapon took from him
As they rode him in custody down to the station
And booked William Zanzinger for first-degree murder.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.

William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of Maryland,
Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
& swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling,
In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.

Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.
She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten children
Who carried the dishes and took out the garbage
And never sat once at the head of the table
And didn’t even talk to the people at the table
Who just cleaned up all the food from the table
And emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,
Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a cane
That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.
And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain’t the time for your tears.

In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all’s equal & that the courts are on the level
& that the strings in the books ain’t pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught ‘em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin’ that way without warnin’.
And he spoke through his cloak,
most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now’s the time for your tears.

Copyright © 1964; renewed 1992 Special Rider Music

the Article (this is a .PDF)

Every time a new hymnal or prayer book comes out, it is bound to offend a few  people. The choices can be hard for a committee, and no matter what hymns they choose, someone will be offended. There will be errors of omission and commission. While I sympathize with the Lutherans who put together the new “Renewing Worship Songbook,” I also am extremely suspicious of their methodology. They have obviously bought into the theories of radical inclusive language, which I will illustrate below. This is one reason why I am glad to be released from the grip of the mainlines: my weariness of constant liturgical revisions dictated by academic trends. Please don’t think I am some kind of hidebound. Being connected to Academia, I know that liturgical revision is often undertaken simply because academic trends dictate them, rather than a demand from laypeople, or on account of any good catholic theological rationale. Liturgical revision is often an exercise in modernist “superiority,” whereby any text written before the 1960s must be “corrected” based on modern secular ideals. The cultural egotism and arrogance involved are staggering, that somehow we are so enlightened simply on account of our birth dates that we have the privilege… er …mandate to fix writings that came before us. Thus a prayer like “Praise the Lord,” a basic praise of God going back at least 2500 years, must be changed because of so-called enlightenment of the last 30 years. The Trinitarian formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” ancient and the standard for over 1900 years, is changed to “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” because a vast minority of 20th and 21st century ears get offended by masculine language. And often what is apropos changes quickly. Soon “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” will be deemed inappropriate because they too are masculine. Perhaps something like this will emerge: Creatress, Redemptress, and (I don’t know the feminine equivalent of sanctifier). Either way there are serious theological issues with ridding our texts of masculine words, and words like “Lord” and “King,” and then replacing them with impersonal words like “creator” and “redeemer.”

I will let you read the article for yourselves, but I will highlight a few changes. “Praise to the Lord” becomes “Sing praise to God,” because “Lord” is supposedly oppressive (despite God’s Lordship being one of servanthood…this is what happens when even liturgical committees are affected by poor catechesis). “All Creatures of Our God and King,” a favorite of mine, becomes “All Creatures of Our God Most High.” Even St. Francis is not safe from being revised I guess. Besides being culturally elitist and theologically innovative, inclusive language creates some very awkward poetry. For instance “give Him praise” becomes “give praise.” Theologically and poetically these two phrases are very different. The former is standard English, the latter is a little iffy. For instance, let’s compare the two sentences “the teacher gave praise to her” and “the teacher gave praise.” The latter seems incomplete and seems to demand an object. Another example is in a fully inclusive Bible version, to be used for liturgy (the name esacpes me), which speaks of Christ giving self, not giving “himself” but simply “self.” Even with my education in classics and literature, I still ask, “what the hell does that even mean?” I guess it strikes me as strange that in order to “include” more people, we change liturgies to such awkward and non-standard English that most people can’t even understand them.

I guess this blog entry is to express my “hands thrown up in the air,” exhausted, and wearied attitude I have toward the mainlines. When confronted with all of these trends I am left with one ancient phrase, “Lord have mercy!” Or should that be “God have mercy…?” Hmmm.

Have Fun! My results are below:

You are Pope John Paul II. You are a force to be
reckoned with.

Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I have recently broken up with a long-term girlfriend, after nearly 3 years of being together. I also am soon to be “broken up” with the Anglican Church, going my separate way, after nearly 5 years of being together. Neither has been easy, but both are undeniably necessary.

Break-ups are hard, but there often comes a point when two people, or a person and an organization, are going in two completely different directions. They no longer have a point of common unity, and the result is bitterness. Rather than stay and remain in constant battle, it is better for both parties just to part in an amicable way, not harboring unreasonable anger, and go where each must. This is what has happened in both of my “break-ups.”

As far as my break-up with my girlfriend, I have learned a few very important things. While relationships cannot always be exciting, or even ever-stimulating, there has to exist a common vision for unity. When a man and a woman wed, both (I hope) see the sacrament of marriage as a point of unity, the sacramental rite being the glue of the relationship so to speak. When they continue in the life of the Church, the Eucharist is not only is a sign of communion among them, Jesus, and the Church, but is in a way, a continual sign of the married couple’s unity in Christ. Even though dating or courting couples are not bound by the sacrament of marriage, the Eucharist can still be a very strong point of unity, even if both are partaking Eucharist in separate congregations (because of the universality of all Eucharists…Nominalists be damned!). I was in a relationship with a girl, who while a good person, did not accept this premise, and in fact at times seemed to be downright opposed to this understanding of Church and Communion. It is no surprise; she came from a congregationalist background. The lesson? Only start romantic relationships with those who value those things you value deeply. I can take or leave car color, or little things like that. If my girlfriend and I disagree over that, who cares? But when we cannot agree on the things that are most important to both of us, we will never last. This type of thing can usually be seen in the beginnings of relationships, we just often ignore them because “any relationship is better than none” I guess. I ignored these signs quite clearly, pretending that nothing was the matter, or that eventually (even though the evidence was strongly against this) she would come to my understanding of it all.

My break-up with Anglicanism has been, believe it or not, somewhat more difficult than my relationship break-up. I think because I have been Anglican longer, and have spent some of my best years defending the church against its detractors, not to mention pursuing ordination at one point. I realized that, like in my former personal relationship, I was somewhat blind to my surroundings. I used to think that someday the laypeople in the pews would arise against the liberal hierarchy, and that the consecration of Gene Robinson would be just the spark needed. And now three years later, we find that instead of the Episcopal church just seeming to be another declining mainline Protestant denomination, it actually is just another declining mainline Protestant denomination. I used to think that England would hold us together and could be looked to for guidance amidst all of ECUSA’s nuttiness. Recent actions by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury have proved to me otherwise. Then I had hopes of a new Anglican Church in America, but now that the orthodox in ECUSA can’t even agree on the path to pursue, I think its just time to part now.

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, who is now Orthodox attending a Roman Catholic Church, and he brought up how reactionary he became when he was in the Episcopal Church. It was really quite contrary to his nature. I noted the same phenomenon within me. Naturally I am quite calm and reasoned, but after being bombarded by a constant barrage of non-Christian activity by my own church, every little issue became a battle. Once he broke off the relationship he had with ECUSA he could see much more clearly and faithfully. This shows that break-ups are not necessarily bad, and in fact, can actually be better for both parties. Neil Sedaka sang that breaking up is hard to do, and he is right to a degree, but I am kind of excited about the possibilities. I am confident that I will soon be entering a good relationship with the Catholic Church, and maybe later (or sooner, who knows?) I will find a woman who shares my love of the ancient faith. By the way, happy Independence Day for my US readers.