All the Holiness of a Holy Card

At a relatively young age I placed myself into a traditional Catholic religious setting. I remember telling the priest (when asked what shows I liked to watch) I liked comedies such as "The Simpsons." At least, it was funny back then in 2001! His response was that my mind, like my body, could easily become "flabby." Such shows, he reasoned, contribute to such decay. This played out again when I noticed commentary on what a "good Catholic should watch on TV" recently.

I think that this is a false image of holiness. As Christian people we have a broken idea of holiness. The down-eyed monk with little humor and still less patience is considered, by many people, to be something to which to strive. Even I have doubts about myself often times in terms of how I relate to parishioners and others with my humor. 

But humor and things that bring us humor are to be celebrated. I must confess that my favorite saints have always been the ones with a good sense of humor. Whenever I am feeling lost or down it is humor and the company of loved ones that restores me. Using humor, not in a way that is cruel to others, is almost a spiritual discipline. It helps us to bring joy into the lives of other people. 

Psalm 104 tells us that wine was given to us, by God, to bring gladness to our hearts. An essential element of holiness is a sense of humor. Without it, we are spiritually compromised because we cannot truly enjoy the company of others. I have to imagine the stories told by the Apostles to our Lord that made him laugh, and perhaps even the jokes that were told. Joy, laughter, and humor add to our very humanity and make us appreciate each other more. For this reason, it is time to bury the false idea of the "holiness of misery" in favor of true joy.

All Good is in Me

I had the fortune to find this quote in my old computer documents, and it seems worth sharing:

All good is in Me
 by St. Tikhon of Zadonsk

Do you desire good for yourself? All good is in Me.

Do you desire blessings? All blessings are in Me.

Do you desire beauty? What is lovelier that I?

Do you desire noble birth? What birth is more noble than that of the Son of God and the Virgin?

Do you desire rank? Who is of higher rank than the King of heaven?

Do you desire glory? Who is more glorious than I?

Riches? All riches are in Me.

Wisdom? I am the Wisdom of God.

Friendship? Who is a greater friend than I - I who laid down my life for all?

Help? Who can help but I?

Happiness? Who can be happy without Me?

Do you seek consolation in distress? Who will console you but I?

Do you seek peace? I am the peace of the soul.

Do you seek life? In Me is the fount of life.

Do you seek light? I am the light of the world.

The Episcopal Church

I recently was talking with a new friend from the Anglican tradition. We were lamenting in some ways that the "Ecclesia Anglicana" has reduced itself to a mere shadow of its glorious past. There seems to be an abandoning of any sense of moderate belief in the church. The Episcopal Church went from "the Republican Party at prayer" as it was known the 1950's to being so liberal that they have alienated many of their even moderate members. It is with sadness that I was relayed the story of a bright young man, who even holds a Ph.D., who is scorned in corners of the Episcopal Church. By other standards he would be quite liberal, but there is the accusation that he is "not liberal enough."
 

I realize that I am naïve. It is my, often misguided perhaps, optimistic opinion that most everyone can "get along" as long as they stick to the essentials. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the ancient Creeds, the necessity of the sacraments, etc. are considered necessities to me. On the other matters, I would submit that if a parish wishes to call an openly gay rector that is their decision. Or if a parish wants to call a female clergyperson that is also their decision. The issue is when they are forced upon by committees and clergy who think it is "for their own good." People can still disagree but remain brothers and sisters!
 

The error comes when we presume to judge the sins of others or to judge their level of openness! Christianity, as a faith, is growing smaller and smaller. The Episcopal Church alone, once boasting over 2 million members, is now claiming 600,000 active communicants. The Episcopal Church has done some great things in terms of leading the path for social justice and equality in the secular realm. But this has often come at the cost of risking the loss of their spiritual component.
 

It is no longer in vogue to speak of our faith openly and publically. We are taught that it, like money, is a private matter and we should discourage it. But the Episcopal Church is at risk of loosing it publically. The Dean of the National Cathedral identifies as a "non-theistic Christian" as do other clergy. Questioning can be healthy, but is hard to provide sustenance to people as a religious leader with such statements.
 

Where will they end up in the future? I really cannot predict this because it remains to be seen. It would also be presumptuous of me, given that I am not an Episcopalian! But I personally find it tragic that a Christian Church with such a glorious tradition and history stands to loose so much.
 

"Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.  And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."

Ecumenism

There is a false sense of ecumenism that is alive today. But only partially... I was fortunate to be part of several ecumenical meetings locally in a ministerial association and nationally at the Churches Uniting in Christ plenary. I met many wonderful people at these and other various ecumenical events, but there were inevitably well-intentioned but mistaken people present. These people were those who vigorously pushed ecumenism at any cost. Their motto was "our differences do not matter, we WILL be together." This is not true ecumenism. This is assimilation to the extent that neither tradition is respected for their differences. It is my opinion that this perspective is bad regardless of the situation. For instance, saying that there is no difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is saying that there is no difference between a African American and a Latino person or a woman and a man. Each group has their own experiences, triumphs, struggles, needs, etc. that, while they can be discussed to arrive at greater commonality can never be totally ignored.

There are very profound differences between various Christian groups. Some of these are insurmountable. For example, it is theologically impossible for a group that does not promote belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be in "communion" with a group that does. Or for Catholic Christians with their belief in sacramental theology to join with a group not professing such a belief. This does not mean that both groups cannot go about bringing hope to the world. Indeed, it is laudable when Christians (and even people of all faiths) join together to combat hunger, poverty, and other injustices.

There is an ecumenical movement that is overdue and it is greater discussion and prayer among orthodox Christians. Roman Catholics, Old (Roman) Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Continuing Anglicans, and the Oriental Orthodox have much in common and can contribute to each other's spiritual lives in greater ways. Not only is communication among these groups laudable, but even within jurisdictions themselves. For example, most groups do not recognize the Orthodox Church in America's right to exist. The same is true of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Yet, these groups have every right to exist as much as ancient patriarchates. It is absolutely ridiculous that they could be "shunned" and considered "uncanonical" because of political reasons. It would be naive to say that politics do not exist in the Church. But to let them prevent even basic dialogue is completely antithetical to Our Lord's commandment that "they all be one."

We must realize that Orthodox and Catholic believers are no longer rivals. We are allies. The rivalry must be gone once and for all. If we understand that, proselytism will stop.” - Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion.

The Glories of the Saints

In a time when sincerity and goodness can often be fleeting, the stories of our predecessors in faith bring me great comfort. The give me hope because of their witness and their testimony.

But, what is it that makes a saint? A saint is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, with God. The glorious thing is that any one of us has the chance to become a saint. Not just in how we live, but (as shown in the Parable of the Workers) in our last moments. St. Joseph Cafasso, one of my favorite saints, was known to give Last Rites and Holy Communion to prisoners condemned to die. After their executions he would say "made a good confession and are truly saints."

And there certainly are saints with some stories! Take St. Olga for example. Before she converted to Christianity she had 5,000 people killed out of revenge for her husband's murder. The story goes:

"Now Olga gave to each soldier in her army a pigeon or a sparrow, and ordered them to attach by thread to each pigeon and sparrow a piece of sulfur bound with small pieces of cloth. When night fell, Olga bade her soldiers release the pigeons and the sparrows. So the birds flew to their nests, the pigeons to the cotes, and the sparrows under the eaves. The dove-cotes, the coops, the porches, and the haymows were set on fire. There was not a house that was not consumed, and it was impossible to extinguish the flames, because all the houses caught on fire at once. The people fled from the city, and Olga ordered her soldiers to catch them. Thus she took the city and burned it, and captured the elders of the city. Some of the other captives she killed, while some she gave to others as slaves to her followers. The remnant she left to pay tribute."

That's pretty mean. But I find comfort in the fact that regardless of our past we have great potential for the future. And the beauty of the saints is that, at least for me, they are not confined to one particular branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I venerate saints of both the East and the West. This is not always easy! Some of the saints on each side were particularly cruel to other Christians (either Orthodox or Catholic). But there is great solace in the fact that they were nurtured by the same Creeds, the Eucharist, the care of the Blessed Virgin, and so many other essential parts of our faith.

Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco is one of my particular favorites among the Orthodox. His life is the very example of an outstanding missionary. I firmly believe that he intercedes for me in Heaven, because I so hope that the walls that divide us don't reach to heaven.

The saints will lead us towards true unity. May they intercede for us all and may we all become saints--proclaimed and not.

Will the Real Moderates Please Stand Up?

I will admit... Sometimes it is very lonely to be a moderate traditionalist. There are any number of groups out there for right-wing traditionalists. If vehemently condemning modernism, calling people heretics, emphasizing clericalism to a radical level, and other positions are one's "thing," then there are any number of places for you.

Similarly, if you are spiritually satisfied by the banal Masses, aren't terribly interested in traditions, and just want to go to Mass and go home then there are many places for you, too! But, it is often lonely in the middle. One might ask--what does that even look like? Well, it's the following:

• A love of Catholic traditional liturgical and devotional practices while focusing on the sacramental nature of priesthood
• That articles of faith provided by the early church provide a clear compass on how the Church should continue to believe in present times
• Believing that, while Christianity has moral standards, there is also importance given to God's grace and that life is, frankly, complicated
• Recognition that modernity has brought with it important tools like the historical-critical method of Scripture as well as psychological insights that form how we understand history and sacred texts

And, I think, I'm generally amenable. I mean, there are things with which I do not agree or that make me uncomfortable. But, I'm not terribly likely to protest them and force them to close unless they're harming others. Because, in my mind, when I force you do to things exactly as I do then that makes me a fundamentalist--a very dangerous creature.

I think that the problem that there is "no one like me" is endemic of a larger issue within Catholicism. Ever since the ultramontanist camp won there is no longer room for any disagreement. You're either with us or you're against us. These days there is also the other "side of the coin" or those who really don't care what the Church says. They are culturally Catholic but give no other thought to the dogmatic articles of the Church.

Many of those who want real discussion but in the context of a Catholic ethos have, frankly, become Anglicans. But that is not a real solution, either. To give up the beauty of Catholicism as has existed in Rome, at least for 1800 years, is not possible. Furthermore, the Anglicans have their own issues. Scripture, tradition, and reason are great as long as you're not on the other side... And now the tent has become so big that it is collapsing in on itself.

It is precisely for this reason that I became enamored with Ultrajectine Catholicism. Because there has to be a way of being Catholic that is both Roman but not rigid, pastoral but not chaos.

Or, perhaps there really are only a few!

The Times They Are a-Changin'...

Since it was posted on Fr. Anthony Chadwick's blog, I have been giving thought to the article here. Essentially, Fr. Chadwick discusses the idea of "basic ecclesial communities" and their growing importance. I will admit my bias first: I have always found myself to be within the relative "fringe" of Catholicism. Therefore, small communities are something to which I have become accustomed. In speaking with an Episcopal rector friend recently, I noted that it is something that they have also come to expect. He noted that it was great if they had 20-30 at a liturgy. This is in a church that could seat 150.

So, what does this mean for our future? More and more churches of various denominations are experiencing this phenomenon. Whole books have been written on it, in fact. But what does it mean to those of us in the Catholic periphery? I think it means that we will see more and more mission communities. Groups of people who no longer have access to the finer means of worship--a building, a large parking lot, a social hall, etc. Among some groups of liturgical Christians, this has been the norm. Many Orthodox, Continuing Anglican, and "Extraordinary Form" Roman Catholics have met in hotels, community halls, etc.

This is, frankly, a hard thing to sell. People generally do not like to "jump" into things. There is a certain level of comfort in going to a packed church and being anonymous. It's why many young people in America are drawn to "Faith, Grace, TVChurch, or @Church" named groups that allow you to come as you are and interact as much as you want. It is relatively terrifying to go to someone's house with 4 other people to assist at Mass.

But, I think an increasing number of groups do not have a choice. We are already seeing these "base" communities within the Ordinariate. More communities are meeting within their local Roman Catholic churches. Will they themselves grow into a community that can support a parish? Perhaps. Or, if the articles lamenting the slow growth of the Ordinariate are correct then perhaps not. But, maybe that is not such a bad thing. Great communities now exist where 3-4 congregations share a church building but each has its very distinct charism and style. 

In such a model the role of community becomes increasingly important, because people are much more visible to each other. This can be terrifying, sure, because there is much more accountability to each other. Some will drop off and others will rotate into such an arrangement. Still others will come semi-regularly and there will be an initial and awkward conversation that we clergy always have when we see someone in the street. "Oh Father, I am sorry I haven't been to Mass because I have been busy doing..." 

Priests in this model will be forced to be "priest workers," or priestly men who also have a vocation in the secular world. We will have to release ourselves from the idea of a priestly caste, or a group of men whose vocation it is to be a priest all day, every day exclusively without other means of financial support. But, we may have no choice...

Fight Like a Patriarch!

One major flaw in Orthodoxy is the nationalism. It has been said of many parishes that well-intentioned converts will approach, only to be turned away when they don't speak the right language, have the right last name, or meet some other standard. This impacts not only individuals alone, but also has a huge impact on the churches themselves. Take, for instance, the Churches of Montenegro and Macedonia. No one would argue that the Russian Church, the Bulgarian Church, etc. have a right to independence. However, Churches that form in newly-created (or recreated) nations often do not have the same right to existence... Somehow.

Another major flaw is the importance given to "territory." The Patriarchate of Constantinople, for instance, truly needs the American Church. There are very few Christians within Turkey, let alone money and influence enough to sustain the church. For this reason, many of the ancient patriarchates depend on new territories to support themselves. This happened with the Church of Estonia (which switched from Russian to Constantinople's influence) and has more recently happened in Qatar between Antioch and Jerusalem (see http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/65186.htm).

This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, one might argue that it is just a macro-level example of what happens in most inner cities. The inner city becomes less populated and people move out to the suburbs. A core group of 20-30 people want to hold onto the Church, but aren't interested in/don't want to reach out to the new locals. And so, massive edifices are erected in the suburbs to serve the people who have moved. The same thing happens with these traditional churches, which are forced to adapt to new areas as their native populations move around the world.

In this model, it is hard to rule things on a strictly territorial model. If one is limited by geography, it is hard to grow. Equally unacceptable is the Columbus model which proclaims "I was here first!" What is the answer? I really don't know. What I do know is that prelates cannot continue to censure each other because of some unrealistic geographical expectations.

Reform of the Reform

It is very evident that there was a strong rupture between the liturgy prior to Vatican II and that after Vatican II. I will venture to say that, with all things, some changes were good and some were bad. For example, Ven. Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the so-called "Dialogue Mass" so that people could more actively participate in the liturgy. I, also, am fond of the congregation offering the responses. I am also a proponent of the vernacular in the liturgy. The earliest Mass was in Greek and later in Latin because it was the "language of the day." The Orthodox have largely kept to the custom of translating the Divine Liturgy into the native language of the people, except in cases of Church Slavonic.

On the down side in an effort to make the liturgy "more approachable," the prayers and components of Mass were made to simplistic. Not only in abominable things like the "Eucharistic Prayers for Children," but in many places. The Missal goes from this prayer for the First Sunday of Advent in the Tridentine Missal:

Stir up Thy power, we beseech Thee, O Lord, and come: that from the threatening dangers of our sins we may deserve to be rescued by Thy protection, and to be saved by Thy deliverance. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end.

To the following in the 2nd Edition of the Roman Missal:

All-powerful God, increase our strength of will for doing good that Christ may find an eager welcome at his coming and call us to his side in the kingdom of heaven.

It is evident that they are not even remotely related. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI reformed the Missal to make it more formalized in language. My personal preference would have been a restoration of the 1968 Missal, with propers matched to the Tridentine Missal as well as one "Eucharistic Prayer." But, my insight really doesn't matter!

Even before the 3rd Missal Edition, there was an effort to promote the "reform of the reform." For many people this was a clear attempt at compromise. There is often objection to the Tridentine Mass, and, to be frank, it doesn't appeal to everyone. The reform of the reform re-created reverent, prayerful liturgies.

Many traditional blogs are now saying that the reform of the reform is "dead." They say that there should have been an effort to restore the so-called "Extraordinary Form." I disagree for the above reasons. Regardless of if people like it, the Mass was changed in 1970. To so radically change things back to the Extraordinary Form would be impossible. However, liturgy has greatly improved in many places because of the efforts of Pope Benedict and others. Devotions have been encouraged, prayerful and reverent liturgies have been promoted, and traditional rubrics have been supported.

Even if Pope Francis breaks tradition with his liturgies, it does not impact the parish life. To be frank, very few Catholics are watching EWTN to examine Papal liturgies. Francis may personally break liturgical customs, but the General Instruction on the Roman Missal is still very clear in the Novus Ordo. Cardinals may eschew their lavish lifestyles under the Francis papacy, and Rome's Congregations may change. However, for life in the parish things can continue to be reverent and prayerful.

"We must have confidence in God, Who is what He always has been, and we must not be disheartened because things turn out contrary to us." - St. Philip

Let's Hear it for the Rainbow Tour...

In 1947, Eva Peron embarked on the "Rainbow Tour." This tour was a goodwill tour of Europe, and was designed to show Argentina's modern and democratic growth. It was popularized in the film "Evita," where it was portrayed as a last ditch effort to save Argentina's public image.

It's hard not to draw parallels between this and the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. True, canonizations are typically political. They help Catholics in various countries have national pride as well as promote their culture. But, it is rare that canonizations happen so quickly. For Pope John, it has been some 40 years since his death. For Pope John Paul II, only 9 years.

The last pope to be sainted was Pope Pius X, but in the last 50 years the number has skyrocketed. Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI are venerables, while Pope John Paul I is a servant of God. So, why this increase? I remember in September, 2013 being in Rome and even 9 years later Pope John Paul II was on every thing. From umbrellas to t-shirts to buses. I think there is a lot of hope that this will give the Church a "bump" in holiness and support.

Will this canonization have the effect it desires? There was an excitement about the so-called "Francis effect." However, while the average Catholic may like Pope Francis' openness, it is not necessarily drawing them to church. The canonizations will likely have the same effect. One could hope that they draw more people to Mass, but I'm skeptical.

Defining Success in Ministry

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."

I have been in an introspective period recently about my ministry and those of others. In some sense, it is easy to have a great bit of sorrow over one's successes. "Why isn't my growth in ministry like x? Why don't we have as many people as y?" In defining the question like this, I have come to the realization that I am completely wrong in my approach.

If we define the success of someone's ministry by the amount of money they take in, the car they drive, the amount of people that they attract, we are defining them in terms of worldly success. It is no secret that people are driven to places that are often comfortable or that offer the a significant amount of amenities. Defining this is as growth is not only unfair to us, but it measures spiritual growth in something completely opposite to the Gospel.

So, what is the measurement of success in ministry? It would seem, based on the Gospels, it is helping others grow in their faith and in holiness. This is not always outwardly measured, and can sometimes be a constant process of success and failure. In many ways, this mimics the ministries of the Apostles. 

For, "wherever two or three are gathered...." Well, we know the rest.

Introduction

Dear Readers!

After some thought, I decided to begin this blog. The primarily rationale behind my writing is to record my thoughts about various topics. Hopefully, they bring some reflection to you in the event you stumble across this blog.

My primary interest is in Catholic tradition within the scope of reason. I also hope to include homilies, reflections on current events, as well as challenging articles. These are informed, primarily, by my background. I serve as a Bishop in the Old Roman Catholic Church. Secularly, I hold a law degree and an MBA. This educational background has provided me with a unique worldview.

I will inevitably post things that are controversial. I may also post personal opinions. As with any writing, my views do not reflect my church. They may not even reflect my own views, but are meant to promote discussion.

I am very empathetic to the words of Elbert Hubbard: "The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." For this reason, I will share varying views.