FUNERAL APPLES AND ORANGES?

So I went to a non-denominational funeral yesterday and was actually quite excited to go to see how someone else did things.  Of course, I was making comparisons between what happened there and what happens at a Catholic funeral.  The thing that I was most struck by however was the lack of participation.  I don’t mean that by way of people not singing or praying (because     they did) but by the role of the laity (at least this one instance.)

We were there largely to listen and pray along with the minister.  He asked us to make Jesus our personal Lord and Savior so that we might join the deceased in heaven.  He prayed over us and asked God to bless us and keep us close to Him and to bring us comfort in this time of sadness.  And there were a lot of stories about the deceased which were at times poignant and humorous.  It was quite touching.  Our “job” was to be moved.  It was billed as “paying our last respects.”  But to whom did we pay them?  The deceased (in this theology) can neither know of now benefit from them.  So it was an exercise in remembering the good (we were told to throw away the bad thoughts) and buoying ourselves up to face life with the lessons learned from this one.  The onus on the preacher is heavy. 

Then I think of a Catholic funeral.  When properly understood and we are at our best, the congregation is not there to simply be ministered to.  They are there to work.  At baptism they were anointed kings, prophets, and priests.  As priests, there are prayers to be offered.  Parts of the Mass belong to the congregation and they are to pray them.  Of course, our theology differs from that of the Protestant Churches in that we believe in the communion of saints; that is, that there is only one Body of Christ with Christ as the head and that Body cannot be completely severed in half even by death so that somehow, in Christ, we are all still somehow mysteriously united.  And because our theology of salvation also differs, there is work to be done for the one who has passed.  We pray for them that their soul may be sped on to heaven.  The ordained priest along with the priesthood of the people offer the One Sacrifice to the Lord on behalf of the one they love and all of the faithfully departed.  Healing comes not by being comforted but through ministry.  The priest still carries much of the burden of the celebration but the totality of the responsibility is shared.

At the end of the service yesterday we were just done other than getting on with our life in Jesus and remembering the good things about the deceased and building on them.  For the Catholic, we remember as is said in the rites that, “All the bonds of friendship and affection that knit us together throughout life do not unravel with death.”  Our prayers for each other continue.  Masses may be offered, candles lit, prayers said, an active relationship in God still to be nurtured.

Or at least it seems to me. 

WHAT WE NEED HERE IS SOME PROFESSIONAL CATHOLICS

Every now and then I pray that news agencies will hire somebody who knows the Catholic faith well before attempting to write a report on it.*  The simplest misunderstanding of a word can lead to grave mis-reporting.

Let's take just one example:  Who does the Catholic Church refer to when she says, "Church."

This is extremely important when considering sentences such as, "Will Pope Francis change Church teaching?"  The very phrasing of the sentence shows a Protestant mindset not consistent with the Catholic Church.  As we have seen, whether it be a storefront Church or a mainstream Protestant Church, tectonic shifts in what is considered core beliefs can change often by having a vote.  The Church, having come to a new understanding of what God intends, can take a vote and change what the Church believes.

When the Catholic Church says "Church," she does not mean Pope Francis.  She does not mean those "old men in Rome."  She does not mean all of the clergy and religious throughout the world.  She does not only mean every single Catholic alive in the world.  For the Catholic, the Church refers to every member of the Catholic Church who has ever lived.  St. Peter's mother-in-law is still a member of the Church.  A milkmaid in the middle ages is still a member of the Church.  My deceased Mother is still a member of the Church and still has a vote.  G. K. Chesterton called this the Democracy of the Dead.  What they held as true to the faith must be held by us and by those who come after us or the true faith has not only been unknown, it is unknowable.

It is categorically wrong to think that Pope Francis is going to change Church teaching.  Church discipline?  Maybe.  The WAY the faith is taught?  Sure.  But that he could change a doctrine?  It is impossible.  You might as well ask if he is going to change the laws of the universe.  The laws of the universe are not his to change nor is he capable.

Someone might point out to you something about the infallibility of the pope - another thing that is gravely misunderstood.  One of the very definitions of an infallible statement is that it does not contradict 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.  If it does so, it is not an infallible statement by definition.

Will Pope Francis change Church teaching?  That is the wrong question to ask.

* But not all the time because I would have a difficult time finding fodder for the blog.

IS THIS TITLE TRUE OR MERELY CLEVER?

I lost the reference for the following paragraph by it was from a magazine called, “The Sun” from an edition from this past year.  The author is going to make a statement.  After you read it, stop and think about it.  Do you agree with it or not and most importantly WHY? 

 

“The self is always moving.  It isn’t going to continue existing after you die.  The minute you buy into the idea that some part of you will hang around, you’ve removed yourself from this world of trees and clouds and birds.  And if you’re not in this flowing world of change, then you’re nowhere.”

 

Now stop, pray, and think.  Is this true?  If it is true or not true, why? 

 

Now that you have done that, here is one possible response:

 

The man who made this statement is a man of deep faith.  He bases his theory upon ideas that are no more “provable” than that of the Christian – I would argue even less so.  That nothing of us lives on is an assumed principle upon which the rest of his theory rests.  But even if we grant him this, does the rest of his hypothesis hold true?

 

If that to which he is referring is the Christian theology that is held by much of the Protestant world and that of some other religions that creation is bad and spirit is good, then he may have something.  Those who call the body evil (or at least opposed to that which is good) have to deny the body and focus on the spirit exclusively.  Mud is bad, angels are good.  Therefor the world is something to be used and discarded.  Its sole purpose is to steer us toward the spiritual.  Then it is true that we not ever really here and a part of creation.

 

But is the opposite true?  If nothing of us lives on does that ipso facto make us more here among the birds and the clouds?  If this is the case then there are no consequences for how we treat the nature other what than might recoil back on ourselves as the line goes, “Don’t pee in your own well.”  But when I die, I cease to exist.  Eventually there will be no one to remember me.  The Earth is a fluke that will one day also simply cease to be.  Humans will not even be a memory.  You might want to keep things nice “for the next guy” but in the end that would just because you want to not because there is any truth to the idea of “the good.”  Preservation is just as much a selfish act as abuse.  So why not suck as much life out of this earth as possible?  Throw another log on the fire, drink out of Styrofoam cup, and rev up the gas generator so that you can listen to some tunes on your radio.  If you are abusing anything, you are not really present to it either.

 

But what if, as in Catholic theology, everything that is is good.  God created all from nothing and he holds it in being.  Then everything to some extent participates in God.  The computer screen on which you are reading this is good.  The paper, ink, persons depicted, and form of a porn magazine are good.  What man did with those things is bad.  (Hence the true perversion of sin!)  If the world is good, if there will be an accounting of how we handled the world (as there was with Adam and the garden,) then won’t we appreciate more, be better to, be more aware of, and be more present to the trees, the clouds, and the birds?

 

I had a skateboard once that I used on the parking lot across the street from my house.  I would skate down the hill and then kick the board back up.  My Mom stopped me one day to explain how expensive that toy was and how I was expected to take better care of it.  Knowing that my actions would be seen, and being taught about the value of my board, I was much more present to it.

I LOVE YOU JUST THE WAY YOU ARE

The Episcopal Church has been running a campaign for the past decade or so which says, “God loves you.  No exceptions.”  It is absolutely true.  It wouldn’t be a bad slogan for the Catholic Church to kick around.  It is defiantly a part of our theology and perhaps not expressed often enough.

 

Jesus, of course, demonstrated this.  Did he limit Himself to just loving those who got straight As in school and only crossed the street at the crosswalk?  No.  He hung out with prostitutes, talked with Samaritan women, and cured a Roman guard’s servant.  God loves every one of His creation.

 

The problem is with leaving the statement there.  God does love you.  But what does that mean?  Coming to realize that God loves you requires a response.  Love requires a response.  “This is me, love me or get away” is not part of the relationship of love.  Jesus loved the prostitutes but he didn’t love them because they were prostitutes.  He had something better in mind for them.  To have an encounter with Jesus was to know that God loves you.  But is also an encounter with the perfect being.  Part of His gift to you is to lift you up, raise your dignity, your sense of worth, to expand your freedom, increase joy, and push you toward the ideal.  Who in Scripture did Jesus leave exactly as they were?  Those that had no intention of changing never became part of His circle.  That does not mean that He did not love them.  He even loved the soldiers putting Him to death, but if He couldn’t work with them, He moved on.

 

When the Catholic Church says, “Jesus loves you, no exceptions,” she does not mean, “So therefore you need not change one iota.”  It means, “Jesus loves you and He wants MORE for you.  More life.  More freedom.  More healing.  A greater capacity for love.  A broader notion of who you are.  Love with God is a relationship that requires a response.  It will not leave you stationary.  (If it does, something is very wrong.)  This is ride to someplace beloved one.  Get ready for a journey.”

WHO SAYS CATHOLICS AREN'T FUN?

Okay, THAT was supposed to be the title of last week's post of a similar name.  But it works out as it seems to fit well the topic that came up on a road trip yesterday.

 

Fr. Pf and I went to visit a friend, Fr. Miller in Pittsburgh.  You know, Pittsburgh is really a great town (at least the parts in which we were.)  One of the things we did was visit churches.  (Sounds like a blast doesn't it? - To each his own.)  At the parishes we visited there were places to light candles and to write petitions and such.  At each place I would offer up prayers for St. Sebastian and that I might be a good pastor to her people.

 

One really cool place we visited was St. Patrick.  "First in Faith!" it claimed as the first parish in the city.  Here is some information on it.  It's a tiny church and not all that beautiful but it was extremely interesting.  When you walk in you are confronted with a giant, marble staircase.  No!  The stairs are not for walking!  A sign an the kneeler before the stairs states, "HOLY STAIRS!  Ascend on knees - ONLY!"  For those who wish to get up to the church on their feet, there are lesser stairs on either side of the lobby to take you up to the Church as the sign states, "Please use stairs on either side of Front Doors."  As you can see, I went up the main stairs praying for the parish and for my ministry.  (Thank you Fr. Miller for taking the picture with your phone.  The nave upstairs was incredibly small.  Maybe it sat 60 people.)

 

But here was what we were discussing later as we ate lunch:  Is not the Catholic imagination cool?  We engage our not only our minds and souls but our very bodies in different acts of prayer.  There are ALL KINDS of prayers that a person may do and some are quite imaginative.  (Some also heretical so we are to be careful.)  Where is the Protestant imagination to match that of the Catholic?  How many ways can we bring the body into prayer such as being transported to walk along with Jesus in the Stations of the Cross?  Visiting Christ in pilgrimage?  Lighting a candle?  Writing a petition in a petition book?  Bringing flowers to a shrine?  Climbing stairs on your knees - just to mention a few!  How rich!  How engaging!  How diverse!  How FUN!  How Catholic!

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IS THIS TITLE TRUE OR MERELY CLEVER?

Dei Verbum paragraph 10

 

What do you say when someone says that they no longer believe in the doctrines of the Church?  How do you respond when someone says that they are Catholic but they don’t believe in what “those bishops” say? 

 

Gee, that’s too bad?

 

Good for thinking for yourself?

 

The question is, “What are doctrines anyway?”  They are not the rules that club leaders get to make.  They are the result of two millennia of the study of Scripture and Tradition.  The magisterium may make binding pronouncements that are binding on the whole Church, but they may make up nothing.  They are at the service of, they are the slaves of Scripture and Tradition.  They have a limited set of tools and may make a limited set of products (doctrines.)  In this, though they may get all dressed up in fancy clothes and stand in the sanctuary, they are truly servants to the greater Church.  They may (in their official capacity) only pass on truth to those willing to listen.

 

Granted, they are sometimes better at stating it than at others, but it is their job as servant leaders.

 

So here’s how it works:  We have Sacred Scripture.  We have Sacred Tradition.  These two pillars support the Church.  They inform, strengthen, and guide each other.  They are the jewels from which crowns are woven.  They began to take clearer shape in the first centuries of the Church through the practice and teachings of the Church Fathers.  Nothing that Scripture and Tradition has taught us and held as truth may change.  What was taught definitively in the year 200 is still taught in the year 2000.  Over the course of centuries these truths may be defined more clearly, but they may never contradict what went before.  As Chesterton was fond of pointing out, if we say that truth changes, that what was true in the Middle Ages is not true today, we might as well say what is true today may not be true on Tuesday next at 3:15PM. 

 

So doctrine is a result of the study of that which is true.  For Catholics, doctrine is truth defined.  It is in this Truth that bishop, priest, deacon, religious, and lay persons are united.  That is the hallmark of Catholic Christianity and should not be discarded casually.

VIRTUAL UNITY?

“Community is lost in virtual communion” was the title of an editorial that appeared in the Beacon Journal last week written by Alex Beam of the Boston Globe.  It concerns a Methodist minister in North Carolina who wants to start a “virtual campus” of religious services via computer which would include Holy Communion, one of two sacraments, the other being baptism, that the Methodists recognize.  Adherents would be able to have a house Church of sorts, gathering together on line to pray under the leadership of a pastor.

 

The article was against this idea.  I must admit that I am not that much against it.  Not for Catholics mind you, but for much of the Protestant world I do not think it that far off track.  Once one lets go of the catholic ideal in the small “c” sense (that they may all be one John 17:21), how can one really argue against it as long as certain precautions are met.  The word catholic means universal.  For Catholics, it means one Church for all peoples, all times, everywhere.  There a ton of implications with that, far too many to go into here but which include such as unity in worship, leadership, belief, and etc.

 

But what if you are starting point is a division?  (Remember, I am taking this from a Catholic position, my Protestant brothers and sisters will take a very different view.)  For example, the minister cited above makes the argument that Methodism’s cofounder, John Wesley, was a radical religious innovator in the 18^th century.  Part of that innovation was to break from established Church and begin something new (or old, if one believes they were returning to something original in Christ’s mission.)  A new Church was formed with its own belief system and hierarchy.  What gave them the authority to do so?  Well, one argument is that the Bible did.  The Holy Spirit did.  The teachings of Jesus did. 

 

There was in interesting religious (non-denominational Protestant) talk show on the radio a few years ago (the particulars escape me now) concerning the problem of people not showing up for Protestant services.  A man called in who said he and few other families were no longer satisfied with the Protestant churches in his area and so, after taking classes in the Bible, they decided to start their own Church.  They gather at each other’s homes on Sunday morning, sing, read Scriptures, and have a sermon that is crafted just for them.  The radio host admitted that he could not argue with him.  They were getting back to the roots of Christianity (in their view.)  Where did they get their authority to do this?  The same place that John Wesley did.

 

The on-line Church is just the next phase of this I would think.  Why not?  The biggest question would be why bother?  Perhaps it would be nice not to have to write your own sermon, study the Bible, or come up with your own hymns.  But instead PayPaling this minister, why not invite your two neighbors over and start your own Church?  It seems a natural evolution of the roots of the movement. 

 

Unless your theology is really about universal community and sacraments and Apostolic succession (as the Catholic Church holds it) and human touch and voice and unity as a corporate body connected in worship, leadership, and belief.  Then there is a problem. 

THE MONTH OF RESTING IN PEACE

What is the most basic difference between a Catholic funeral and most of the Protestant world’s funerals?  You might point to having the body taken to church (which to some people just seems odd at best) or any other number of things.  But these are mostly symptoms of what is different, not what, at heart, is dissimilar.

 

It is most evident during this month when Catholics celebrate All Souls Day and place a special emphasis on praying for the poor souls; those in Purgatory awaiting their entrance into heaven, all month long.

 

For most of the Protestant world (and it is the same for atheists,) we have no real connection (prayer wise) with those who have died.  For Protestants this is true because at death you have gone to your reward (one way or the other) and are no longer in need of prayer even if it were possible.  For the Atheist this is true because after death there is simply nothing.

 

For Catholics, there is a more unified understanding of what it is to be the Body of Christ.  There is only one Body of Christ.  Christ is its head.  That singular body cannot be divided up even by death.  Somehow we are still mysteriously united and our prayers may still benefit each other.  There is also the idea of being purified prior to entering before the face of God, which requires being purged of one’s sins.  Whatever this is, we call Purgatory.  The Protestant world does not have a teaching about this.  So for them, even if prayer could flow back and forth, it is unnecessary because once you are in heaven for what do you need prayer?  You’ve made it to the top.

 

So basically, (painting with a very broad paintbrush) at a non-Catholic funeral the idea is to encourage each other (either with the Word of God and/or the support of the community etc.,) and to remember the one who passed away.  There is an additional element understood among Catholics for over two thousand years: that we can also pray from the deceased.  We ask God that they be sped to heaven (which is the tragedy when someone says, “I’m sure they are already in heaven.  You may be denying them some prayers they could use!)  And if we can pray for them, we may also ask them to pray for us, that we remain close to Christ, follow in His ways, and be better prepared for entrance into heaven when we leave this life. 

 

So get on it Catholic!  Remember to pray for you deceased loved ones and for the poor souls this month inparticular.  And hopefully in doing so, we will lead by example and others will pray for us when we need it!

STRAW MEN

A few assignments ago the parish in which I was ministering was part of a local ecumenical council.  All the local Christian Churches joined together in order to try to create some positive events for the community.  There was one Church, however, that was viciously anti-Catholic.  Actually, I don’t think that they were intentionally anti-Catholic, but they were.  Their tag line was that they loved Catholics and knew that they were going to hell, and so it was their sworn duty to do everything they could to convert us.  This included sneaking into the parish church and leaving tracks that looked very Catholic on the cover but inside taught why Catholicism was so bad.  As a result they were asked not to return to the group.

 

Now, I actually do not have a problem with somebody who thinks they have something better going on and invite people to their church instead of the Catholic Church (even though I think they are wrong.)  But I have a difficult problem with the great amount of Churches that misrepresent the Church, then denounce the misrepresentation, and then say, “So join us, because we are not that evil Church.”  I can’t get over how often this is the case.  It is common even in my local area with such mega churches such as Grace and The Chapel, large non-denominationals that boast such a large percentage of their congregations are former Catholics, who feel they have to misrepresent the Church in order to refute her.  Even when they use the Catechism, it is a common practice to use selective passages out of context to make their point.  That is not saying much for someone who believes they have truth and want to convince somebody to join them.  So much for trusting in the Holy Spirit. 

 

On the one hand it is our fault for not teaching our people better.  On the other hand, hurray for us for if the majority of their congregations are made up of ex-Catholics, WHERE DO THEY THINK THEY WERE FIRST INTRODUCED TO JESUS AND ARE STILL FEELING MOVED TO FOLLOW HIM albeit in a breakaway Church?  It is a shame (and not entirely their fault) that former Catholics rely on such sources to tell them what their (former) Church taught them instead of really looking into it – and there are plenty of ways to do so.

 

Thinking about it recently I came to the conclusion that if were not Catholic, I would not be Protestant.  If it were not for the Eucharist in the way that the Catholic Church believes it, I don’t think I would buy into the whole Christian experiment.  I would probably be Jewish.  But as it is, there is the Eucharist.  And I cannot fathom anybody who has been properly catechized in it, and who believed it, would leave the Church for anything no matter how justified they felt.  In fact, most people I talk to concerning their reasons for leaving the Church have nothing to do with such things.  They site better music, better community, better extra-praise services offered by the church and as such, searching for a Church becomes like looking for a good gym – a place that offers things I want rather than an honest search for truth.

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVISM

There is a local church that has one of the few marquees to which I pay attention.  There is always something there that makes me stop and think, usually because it is a challenge to my belief though we share the same moniker of Christian.  The church considers itself progressive and innovative and advertises such quips as, “Planned Parenthood helps men too!”  This is, of course absolutely true.  As long as the man has not had the life snuffed out of him in his mother’s womb by Planned Parenthood, it will then help him later in his life, if appropriate funding can be found, even to helping him snuff out the life of his own son.

 

And so we have the march of progress.  In fact, that is one of their latest tag lines on their marquee: “Progressive churches make things happen.”  This little dandy caught my attention and occupied quite a bit of my contemplation time.  “What exactly is that supposed to mean?”  Like so many things we are presented with, it seems like it means something but if you take the time to think about it, it really doesn’t.

Consider firstly the word “progressive.”  What does it mean to be a church “of progress?”  After all, progress in science may allows us to have vacations on the moon, but we may not live to see it if our cancer progresses.  For progress to mean anything positive, there must be a goal to progress to.  For far too many people, progress simply means stumbling forward; doing something because we can, not because we are supposed to.  Not all moving forward is progress.  Cities, societies, even people move forward toward decay.  If you do not know who you want to be when you grow up, you might get older, but you won’t progress to anything positive.

 

In order for a Christian church to be progressive, there must be an ultimate goal and that goal must outline what is best both for the human person and for humanity in general physically, mentally, and spiritually.  It must be based on truth and being so, all true progress will move toward that truth.  Progress, then, is not a process of allowing humanity to go to seed as it wishes but to lift it up to an ideal; rather than broadening the path, it teaches men to walk the narrow road.

 

In this, then, I would argue there is not a Church as progressive as the Catholic Church in (when it is properly understood.)  It has an ideal to achieve and to which man is called; it calls each individual and collective communities to the highest standards of health, knowledge, and holiness.  When it moves men in this direction, it is truly progressive.

 

“Makes things happen,” the second part of the tag line, is a particularly value free statement.  A squirrel running past a dog in a china shop makes things happen.  That being said, if I had to guess at what the sign intended to convey I would supposed it implies that if you do not like the current state of affairs or the current idea of what progress is, then one should join them to make change happen.  (A whole other topic.)  As a whole, I like “things to happen.”  It is far superior to things not happening at all.  But there are things I would rather happen and other things I would rather not.  But in any event, if I am going to be part of a church that “makes things happen,” I hope it is truly a Church of progress and not simply a Church blindly moving forward.

CATHOLIC NEWS YEAR IN REVIEW II

The second of four topics in John Allen’s Catholic news year in review is the New Evangelization.  This new effort within the Church will be “the engine that steers the financial train” of the Church making this the most important internal priority in the Church.

 

Statistics are a funny thing.  It is said that 67.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot (that is a joke) and that you can make statistics mean just about anything.  But if we only look at the number of new adherents, Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world.  Interesting, but the happy news is not great for the western Catholic world.  Catholicism continues to be the largest single religious group in the United States with Baptists coming in a distant second.  (Protestantism as a whole is larger than the Catholic Church, but they are splintered into thousands of denominations.)  However, larger than even the Baptists are those who consider themselves former Catholics.  Though 68% of those baptized Catholic as infants remain Catholic into adulthood, that leaves 32% that “leave” and we are not doing a good job of retaining or replacing them.

 

Part of the reason is we have become so terribly polite.  “I’m Okay, your Okay, let’s not talk about religion” has become the political fashion.  While it may allay fist fights, it does nothing for evangelization and the furthering of the faith.  Hand in hand with yesterday’s post, we are to stop focusing on issues that are not on the Catholic playing field and get cracking on real matters of faith and truth that enliven peoples’ hearts.  The fire of evangelization has grown cold.  It is time to wake from our slumber, shake of the cloudiness of confusing issues, and carry forth the banner in the clear light of the sun – to banish complacency and apathy – and to relight the missionary fire to warm those around us in our everyday lives.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

“There’s always a king somewhere.”

Or so says Michner in his book, “The Source.”

I tend to agree with him.  No matter how democratic a democratic nation or organization might be, there is a person or small group of persons with undue influence on how things go.  There is a de facto person in charge.  Even if it is simply by natural selection there is that person that people will naturally turn toward as leader even if that leader is charged with making sure the democratic nature is upheld. 

I would also augment Michner’s statement to say, “There is always a pope.”  We could extend it further and say, “there is always a Tradition.”  And it seems the more a church fights against popes and tradition, the more they entrench the very ideas they wish to deny.

Take, for example, a typical non-denominational church where the very thought of having a leader acting as a universal vicar for Christ is taught as an abhorrent notion.  Where does that very notion come from?  The pastor of the church – perhaps in consultation with some form of elders.  Sounds very much like a pope in consultation with his cardinals.  There is an established hierarchy (even if there is a strong effort to deny and hide the fact) but the belief system is not left to chance.  There is a clear message with an authoritative leader.

“Ahhh,” a dissenter from this thought might say, “but that pastor or that church board is not speaking on its own but, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is only speaking the unadulterated truth of the Gospel and not adding anything to it.”  (Sola Scriptura as it is known.)  This is actually a very good retort and one that could be taken seriously if those who subscribed to such a belief did not splinter into thousands and thousands of churches on just about every point in the Bible. 

Take this example:  Baptism.  Some say that it is necessary for salvation, others do not.  Some say that it transforms who we are, others see it as a rite of passage.  Some see it as permanent, some do not.  Some see at as an assurance of heaven, some do not.  Some understand the Trinitarian formula much as the Catholic Church does, some are far from it.  If Scripture is so very clear so that all one has to do is read it and it will give you the exact instructions on what to do to be admitted into heaven, how on earth could there be so many interpretations of what it says?

And how do people of any given denomination (or so called non-denominations) know what interpretation to follow.  There is only one answer:  It is their Tradition – the very unbiblical interpretation of what they are reading and pass on from one believer to the next.  It may be voted on by a conference, a congregation, held in a writing of a founder, interpreted by a pastor, history book, or decided upon by grandma at the dining room table and passed on to her family but in any event it is a Tradition on how to interpret the Scripture being read.  (Even which version of Scripture to read is a Tradition.  The accumulation of the Bible itself is a result of Tradition.)

Every church you pass on the way to Mass has some form of pope and exercises some form of Tradition.  It is just much more transparent at your Catholic parish.

YOU SAY TO-MAY-TOE AND I SAY ORANGE

A Catholic pastor that I know, a good man, makes the statement that he wants his parish to become the “megachurch” of Catholic Churches. This makes me sad in that it shows a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be Catholic.

Before I rail on him too much, there is some aspect to his desire that is laudable. He has a goal of bringing more souls onto the parish roles. He also has a deep desire to see what it is about other Churches that attract so many people. These people are going to other Churches for a reason – perhaps there is something there about which we need to pay attention and see if there is something we can make part of the Catholic experience in order to keep souls closer to the sacraments. This is all good.

There are a couple of points however that need some serious review. To begin with, a Catholic parish will almost never compete with a mega Church precisely because they are not the same thing. It would be like a city trying to compete with a state for numbers and recognition. They are two completely different categories of institutions. One is a Church, one is a parish. The local mega Church may have 10, 20, 30 Xs the amount of people than the local parish. It may have five campuses. But if we are going to compare oranges to oranges, the “local” Catholic Church is not a parish but the diocese. The parish is simply the particular worship space of the local Church. So in Akron, The Chapel is not to be compared to St. Bernard/St. Mary parish, but with the local Catholic Church which is the Diocese of Cleveland.

Another reason the parish/Church comparison does not make any sense is that the area of draw is much different. The parish is exceedingly limited. The megachurch draw is as far as people are willing to travel – or, about the size of your average diocese.

Lastly (at least for the purpose of this post) there is a huge difference in the idea of belonging. In the Catholic Church you are not just another name on the roles. One cannot just sign up and be a member. There is the expectation of discipleship, initiation, and expectation of becoming the Church itself, not simply being a member of an institution. You are Church and not a member of it the way you might be a member of the local YMCA.

You will find exceptions to every one of these. There will be the mammothly large Catholic parish some place. There are Catholic parishes that draw from far outside their parish limits. (This is the case even with St. Sebastian because of the extraordinary form of the Mass) and we all know individuals who use the Catholic Church as a service and treat it as something of which they are a member and not of which they are an essential part. But these are exceptions to the rule or at least not in the spirit of what it is to be Catholic.

SHATTERED

A little less than half of all Christians in the world are Protestant.

Within that group there thousands and thousands of denominations each promising to have the handle on God’s truth. It is the great scandal of the Christian Church that we are not all one.

Jesus’ message was supposed to bring us together into unity. “That they may be one,” He said. Yet we are anything but when almost half of Christians belong to that segment of Christianity that “Protests” not only against the other half, but internally with the protesting denominations themselves. (And to be honest we often protest right back.)

There are two wrong approaches in addressing this reality. (No solutions here – just a couple of those things that should be avoided.)

The first mistake is not recognizing that there are any difference between us. If we do not recognize any differences then there is little impetus to work toward unity. An example of this would be Communion in the Catholic Church. It is not unusual for a priest to be upbraided for not giving Communion to anybody who shows up at such times as funerals or weddings. Before Communion I generally make an announcement which states that although we are honored to have non-Catholics with us and that they are most welcome, I may only offer Communion to those Catholics who are properly disposed.

There are those within the Church who are angry because this appears rude to them. “Can’t we all just get along?” No. We don’t. Then there are those outside the Church who are angry because they feel excluded from Catholic Eucharist. Of course they are welcome if they want to hold and believe what Catholics do. Most of the time there is no intention.

Yet if we glossed over this moments and pretended there was unity, what would ever change? What issues would be discussed? What reality recognized? It is this very act that has been the genesis for many discussions and reconciliations. Would they have occurred if we pretended our divisions did not exist?

At the other end of the scale is inappropriately celebrating the divisions. Rather than celebrating there should be great mourning and penance that the Christian Church is divided. Triumphalism and disdain have no role in the life of any Christian in any denomination.

A Methodist minister recently wrote this:

“[O]ur daughter has been asked to play organ music for today’s worship in her Chicago church that is appropriate for Reformation Sunday. In many Protestant churches, today will be celebrated in remembrance of Martin Luther’s posting of 95 Theses on the castle church door in Wittenberg, Germany October 31, 1517. Luther’s simple act is often regarded as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

“I have not asked a church to celebrate the Protestant Reformation in 25 years. I came quickly to the point as a pastor when I could not lead a church in celebrating division. We have been schooled to call it the Reformation, yet the division of the church into Protestant and Catholic was finally a failure of love. Why would Christians want to celebrate brokenness when Christ has called his church to be a sign of unit in the world? When people break off from a denomination or church to form new congregations, no one is sadder than Jesus.”

This is a man with whom you could engage in a conversation and perhaps work at the true issue of healing division within Jesus’ Church.

PARISH MITOSIS

A Church just bought a local theater that went under a few years ago. The Baptist Church needed a place to grow and the building needed a buyer. It was a perfect match. It also exemplifies one of the great differences between many Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church.

The article mentioned the pastor’s name and reported that under his leadership the church had grown significantly. The growth under this pastor made their current facilities inadequate for the congregation and so they simply moved to a bigger building in a new location.

Now think of what happens when the same thing happens to a Catholic parish. There is a reason we are called parishes and not churches. We are the Catholic Church, and the local Church is the diocese. So around here where Adam’s Ale is written, we belong to the Church of Cleveland and are parishes in that local Church. When one of our parishes starts to grow dramatically we first might add a priest and few Masses and expand the building. But if the parish continues to grow from there it would not mean that the parish would move in most cases or that a professional football stadium sized church would be built, we would create another parish.

One reason we do this is because the success of a parish should not be about the personality of the priest (though a good priest certainly helps.) It is about Jesus and the sacraments. Keeping our parishes from becoming too large based on the cultic personality of the priest helps keep our focus on what is important and also from being stuck with gigantic buildings that empty after the priest is moved to another parish and those who were only there for the personality of the priest disappear.

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY

A large portion of the Christian world believes in the theory of “Bible Alone” or Sola Scriptura. The idea in the most basic of terms is that the Bible is sort of a “How To” manual and that all that one needs to do is read the Bible (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) and that one will come to know truth. In my book the 500 year experiment has failed. The most glaring evidence for this is that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, many at odds with opposing positions on key tenants of the faith, but all claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit and containing all truth.

There are many reasons for this but here is one given by a priest recently.

Interpret this sentence: “I never said you stole money.”

What did this sentence mean to you?

Read this sentence again out loud in with the following emphasis added:

I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.
I never said you stole money.

Each reading completely changes the meaning of the text. What did the author have in mind when he wrote it? Well, it is helpful to have an authority that states “this is what he meant.” This is like the “international prototype of the kilogram; a cylindrical chunk of platinum-iradium kept in a safe at Sevres in France” reported today in the Plain Dealer. This chunk of metal is designed to always bring us back to the exact measurement of what a kilogram is should we go astray.

Tradition is our prototype of interpretation of Sacred Scripture. What was true today was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. Truth cannot be determined by popular vote or current trends in our culture. The Holy Spirit cannot say one thing one day, (birth control is a sin) and something else the next (abortion is a right.)

Today the Catholic Church stands virtually alone in the teaching that was taught by St. Peter, by St. Sebastian, by St. Francis, by the Church Fathers, by Saint Scholastica, by Pope John Paul II, by (hopefully) your parish priest, and will be taught by your children. Tradition stands as a great gift and not a burden. It keeps us on track.

MONDAY DIARY: BRIEFLY WITH THE BREVIARY

An interesting phone call came in this week. One I don’t get very often. In fact, it has never happened before.

A man called and said that he bought a Christian prayer book and wanted instructions on how to use it. “I just want you to know that I am Protestant, but I want help in learning how to pray with this book.”

So I wondered what was in his Christian prayer book. Was it the rosary? So I asked a few questions and discovered it was the Christian Book of Prayer, a shorter version of the Breviary. These books contain the Liturgy of the Hours, the official prayer of the Catholic Church. All clergy and religious take an oath to pray this prayer daily for the sake of the Church, but in truth, all Catholics are urged to pray this prayer. We pray parts of it throughout the year as a parish and whenever I take someone on as a spiritual directee, they will learn how to pray this great prayer.

Bearing all of that in mind you can imagine my surprise when a Protestant called to ask for instructions. I told him it is one of those things where it was much easier to teach him how to pray it if I prayed it with him and showed him how it was done. He was quite excited at the prospect and we set a date.

“How much do you charge?” he asked.

HA! God bless him!

He came and while I was setting his ribbons for him in order to find the correct psalms to pray I had to ask, “So how on earth did you come across this book?” He explained that he was looking for some deeper, meditative prayer of a type he was not finding in his local church. It is a popular mega church in the area. He found the Christian Book of Prayer on line and ordered it and now needed someone to teach him how to pray it. So we did.

You know, it is interesting to view one’s faith from the perspective of an outsider. We are used to and take so much of our faith for granted. But there is much to it that is so foreign to other people. This occurred to me for the first time when I had to explain relics to someone who was not Catholic. THAT was eye opening.

So I explained to him that I was going to show him how Catholics pray the LOTH and that he would have to adapt it to his faith tradition. It became an opportunity to see the Liturgy of the Hours through his eyes. There were clearly some things that were not going to be part of his practice such as the Sign of the Cross and the Marian Antiphon sung at the end of Night Prayer. But as I paid attention to the all many Psalms prayed in a single day, the other Scriptural passages, the music, and the constant reliance on God I was once again bolstered by this great faith of ours.

When we got to the petitions the first one was for, “Benedict our pope and Richard our bishop.”

“You probably want to skip over those huh?”

“The pope is a great man. I have no problem praying for him.”

I was a bit stunned and could only mutter, “Thank you.”

When we were done he asked if I could recommend a book on Lectio Divina. “I just happen to have a work sheet here to help you pray it. Let’s try it together with a passage from Scripture.” And we did.

Why is this man not Catholic?

I wish I could be a fly in the wall when he returns to his church and shows them what he has been praying. Will it go over well? Maybe it will direct him to the Catholic Church or simply make him a better prayer in his own church. In any event, it made me more appreciative of our prayers.