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.