Going Into Another Week

 As I am writing this, we just experienced a tornado warning, something a bit unusual for downtown Baltimore.  However, this has been a few times during the summer so far, so that is a bit extraordinary.  As I am about to start another week today, I am feeling a bit more positive about a few things and I am happy overall with the feeling.  I am not sure of the trajectory of the discussion today, as I am actually researching to do a couple of other articles later dealing with some philosophical things I wanted to address, and that will be forthcoming once I have all my research material together.  But there are a couple of more light-hearted things I wanted to share so I will do that. 

With the advent of YouTube, there is a lot of content that I am finding intriguing, and on occasion I just like to review a few things that stick out.  Two of those will be the topic of today's discussion.

For anyone who knows me, I am into more Southern and "redneck" humor, mostly because on a certain level I relate to it as a native West Virginian.  So, over the years I have actually been a fan of comedians like Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, and Larry the Cable Guy - Larry is entertaining because he actually puts me in mind of a couple of my uncles and a few of my cousins.  What many people don't know is that there are lesser-known talents who are starting to rack up followings on social media, and this weekend I came across a good one. 

Amanda Meadows is a native North Carolinian, and during COVID (I will revisit this momentarily) she decided to start doing this shtick based on a person she knew as a child in a trailer park she grew up in.  The character, called "Charlene," is in all essences a female counterpart of Larry the Cable Guy - she sports a blonde mullet, a fake "cigarette" (it is actually a pen), a fanny pack, and a propensity for hanging out at traditionally redneck institutions such as Waffle House, Wal-Mart, and Dollar General.  Although none of these places are exclusive to rednecks, it does present a good opportunity for them to purchase things at good prices and thus it is, as another "redneck mama," - the late Dolores Hughes, known as "Meemaw" from the show Hollywood Hillbillies - noted so eloquently in a manner that reminded me of my own maternal grandmother what is called "shittin' in high cotton."  I don't begrudge anyone shopping at Wal-Mart or the Dollar General, as personally I like shopping at both places myself and have been a faithful patron of both for years. For one thing, Dollar General was one of the first places to feature the delicious blueberry Moon Pie (those are delicious!) and I was able to stock up on a ton of those last year for about $1.25 a box.  Oddly, here in Baltimore within two blocks of where I am sitting, there is one within walking distance - apparently, the Black community here likes Dollar General as much as White rednecks in the South do.  In reality though, Dollar General has universal appeal, and you really cannot beat the prices although now the average price is actually $1.25 instead of the traditional dollar (inflation - go figure!).  Any rate, before I chase too many rabbit trails here let's get back to Amanda's character Charlene.

If you get a chance to watch some of her video content, Amanda's Charlene character is going to be endearing to you - let's face it, we all know a few Charlenes, especially for those of us who do come from either the Appalachians or the South.  A lot of the videos with Charlene's character are actually recipes, and one - the chocolate poke cake - actually looked quite good.  Charlene represents a fact of life that many of us who grew up not having a lot have experienced - you have to cook quick meals with what you got, and if you have the ingenuity, you can make a feast out of a few fundamental ingredients.  Some years back, I got a copy of Bethany Bultman's book Redneck Heaven: Portrait of a Vanishing Culture (New York: Bantam Books, 1996).  Throughout her book, Bultman features recipes that she collected which feature something of the cuisine - what is called "redneck cuisine" is often based on two things: affordability and convenience.  This means that people have gotten creative with things such as boxed cake mixes, refrigerated canned biscuits, more disgusting stuff like Spam, and the use of things such as Coke, powdered lemonade, and a certain type of salt called Twang.  I too have inherited some of that from my West Virginia upbringing too, as I can take a box of Stove-Top, a jar of Heinz beef gravy, a can of Hormel roast beef, and a little beef stock and create a meal that will last me two days.  Or, taking things like canned pork and Minute Rice, spritzing it up with a few seasonings, and voila, you have dinner.  Another favorite of mine is Steak-ums and ramen noodles.  A combination of poor upbringing, a college student's budget, and just a knack for knowing how to do something that is both filling and easy to throw together (albeit not always the healthiest!) has given me a sort of "hillbilly gourmet" style of cooking too.  In Charlene's videos, you see this as well, as she creates a breakfast for an army out of Pillsbury biscuits and a roll of Jimmy Dean sausage - I don't particularly like biscuits and gravy personally, but I admire that creativity in all honesty.  Now, back in the day, convenience foods were not readily available so often those biscuits were made from scratch and the sausage came from a freshly-butchered hog.  Bultman sprinkles those recipes and food tips all throughout the book, as there is technically not a single chapter, but you kind of get the picture as you read it.  Of course, the other side of that too is that not everything in a country kitchen - even a poor trailer park home - comes from the Dollar General.  We still enjoyed things like wild game and fresh-caught fish too, and that stuff still shows up in country cuisine as well.  As I mentioned, part of the charm of this character Charlene is that we relate to her somewhat, and that speaks for a significant percentage of the population (Blacks too have a lot of similar things in their "soul food" cuisine too). The real funny thing about first seeing Charlene's character is that as soon as a saw it, I automatically thought of a friend of ours from college years ago.  Elaine was the maid of honor at Barb's and my wedding, and before I even got to know her she was a dear friend of Barbara's too.  And, she is really what embodies the "Florida Cracker" too - and that is not an insult, but a compliment, because I love Elaine and wouldn't want her to change a thing.  When I first saw one of these Charlene skits, the first thing that popped in my head was "Oh my goodness, she reminds me of Elaine!"  Then, when I showed it to Barbara, she said the same thing!  Like I said, the appeal of characters like this is that we relate to them, and that is why I will continue to probably be a fan of Amanda Meadows for as long as she wants to have a YouTube presence (I really think she has the talent to take this bigger, but that is ultimately up to her).  

The other thing I have been keeping up with on YouTube is not near as pleasant, and is a religious story.  In recent years, this new hyper-charismatic superstar by the name of Kathryn Krick has surfaced, and at first appearance, she just looks like all the other individuals that claim "anointed ministries" but often fall short theologically.  The last person I noted like this was another woman in Florida, some hack by the name of Dayna Muldoon, but by comparison Krick makes her look tame.  Ever since the late 1940s when the first tent preachers started holding these "healing revivals," there has been controversy.  There are some of those earlier people I will gladly give the benefit of the doubt - for instance, I still admire Kathryn Kuhlman to this day - but way too many of them tried to hype and exaggerate their so-called "gifts" to exploit money from the unsuspecting.  As TV became more popular, many of these tent evangelists very easily transitioned into becoming televangelists, and with the wider audience they started to reach, the more outlandish some of them would become.  Now, let me say up-front I am by no means against using technology for evangelization or discipleship, as radio, TV, and the internet have all created some powerful platforms and have truly impacted many lives for the better.  However, there have always been hucksters and potential cultists who have taken advantage of others through these media, and I wanted to talk a little about a couple of those from my college days before getting back to Kathryn Krick.

Often in our dorms at night when we were caught up on our studies or just needed a break, a group of us would congregate in one of our neighbor's quarters to listen to some entertaining but bizarre broadcasts on a short-wave radio one of us had.  Late night on short-wave would bring some interesting characters out of the woodwork, and it seems like the Black stations in the South - particularly Mississippi and Louisiana - had more than their fair share of these "preachers" calling themselves "Mother This," "Apostle That," or "Prophet So-and-So."  A couple of those I vividly remember included some Black woman out of Louisiana somewhere who called herself "Mother Truth," and another guy from the same area who called himself "Prophet Charles."  The way their scheme worked was that you would essentially hear a 30-minute commercial of these characters marketing some sort of Louisiana swamp water or something that you were supposed to splash on your hemorrhoids or whatever else ailed you, and it was a sort of Holy Ghost miracle cure.  Even the most outlandish people on TBN at the time - Benny Hinn for instance - didn't do this, and it was so absurd that it provided entertainment value more than anything.  Many of them were more or less lower-profile knockoffs of more colorful personalities like the late Rev. Ike, and they sort of rode his coattails.  I feel like a whole book on this phenomenon is warranted, and by what I have ascertained, these people had a mix of stuff that included Word/Faith theology with a little bit of hoodoo and superstition thrown in to capitalize on the mindsets of some of their listeners.  For the most part, these Reverend Ike knockoffs had relatively small localized followings and the wider public didn't take them seriously.  And, I gotta admit - for a young college student in the dorms in Graceville at the time, it was a fun form of entertainment as long as you were grounded enough to know better.  Also, I don't think there was really a spiritual danger with any of those characters - they were out to make a fast buck, and as long as you kept them away from your wallet, you were fine.  When I think at the variety of trinkets and gimmicks guys like this hawked though, it would be interesting just to see a sort of display of that for historical purposes.  As entertaining and outlandish as the "Mother Truths" were though, they were in reality just a minor annoyance compared to what an individual like Kathryn Krick has done.  And, that is what is scary.

Kathryn Krick is a beautiful 35-year-old young lady who originally aspired to be an actress or something until she encountered some "prophet" from Africa named GeorDavie.  Had it not been for a person like Kathryn Krick coming along, GeorDavie would have essentially been just another of the myriad of self-proclaimed "prophets" and "apostles" that seemed to spring from African Independent Church traditions.  In many ways, GeorDavie was no different than old Mother Truth hawking her Louisiana swamp water on the radio years ago, but then this pretty young White middle-class Evangelical girl encounters him, and it leads to bigger issues.  A legitimate debate could be had regarding whether this GeorDavie guy was a crook or a witchdoctor (or maybe a little of both), and I have heard a few noted podcasters note that possibly he imparted demonic powers to Kathryn Krick when he consecrated her an "Apostle."  As some of her close friends noted, the radical "conversion" she had turned her into a different person.  That being said, let me get into the conclusions I have drawn by what I have seen.

I first heard of Kathryn Krick through the apologist Melissa Dougherty, who did a sort of "deep dive" investigation into her Word/Faith teachings, and Melissa noted that Krick was a sort of rising star in the Word/Faith movement.  At first, I honestly didn't pay attention - I have seen these before, including Todd Bentley, as well as the whole Rodney Howard-Browne phenomenon that happened at Carpenter's Home in Lakeland years ago (that was the early 1990s, and I was both a young minister myself then as well as in my first year at Southeastern University), and I attended a couple of those Carpenter's Home meetings as well as later being security for them when I worked for the late megachurch as a "temple guard."  However, there was something somewhat odd about this Kathryn Krick person, as her followers were doing some odd things - some were even bowing in worship to her, and she got to be so weird that even some of the most hyper-charismatic groups in the country like Bethel disavowed her - she even went too far for them.  The more I saw of this, the more I began to look into who she was, and it was disturbing.  Apparently her "spiritual daddy," this GeorDavie character in Africa, was in the stages of starting his own sex cult in Tanzania, and people were speaking out about that.  Krick has denied it, but I often wonder about her too - was she serving as a human-trafficking pimp for this guy, sending young unsuspecting and very spiritually enthusiastic American ladies to him so he could have his way with them too??  There is so much to sort out with this, but I can say with confidence that no authentic Christian should have anything to do with Kathryn Krick - she is a charlatan at best, and a dangerous cultist at worst.  And, the scary part of this is that there could be more like her out there.  This was something I wanted to address, and maybe later I will get into it more once I learn more about it, but that has been my fascinating viewing this week. 

On that note, I will wrap things up for now, but hope to be back soon.  Thanks again for visiting. 

Further Reflections - Reimagining Traditional Faith

 I know when you read the title, you are maybe thinking that this equates to modernism, but in reality it does not.  This is the promised continuation of my discussion from yesterday, and it may take a while to formulate a few thoughts on this one as I am still wading through ideas myself.  It was inspired by seeing those Pentecostal churches in Brazil with orchestras including the colossal saxophones, and with everything else I have been thinking over, it struck a chord (pardon the pun!) with me.  I am just going to dive right in and see where it takes us.  

I am reminded of a sentence in the article I differed fundamentally with Fr. Michael in our parish bulletin a couple of weeks back where he said  "The truth of Catholicism is that the eternal is made present to us in the particular time in which we live."  What Fr. Michael says here - at least on the surface and at face value - is not fundamentally wrong, and in the context of what it actually says I have no problem with the statement.  The problem with the statement, however, is that it is often used as a gaslight to push some odd things in regard to eternal truth and established teaching, which does not change.  James Martin goes by this rationale when he tries to push homosexual marriage as somehow a "godly thing," in that because it relates to the particular time and place where we are, we as a Church should just absorb it and not only accept it, but even celebrate it as "good."  That is the fundamental problem with Fr. Michael's statement - it lacks clarity on so many levels.  How, for instance, is "the eternal made present" in a particular day and age??  This strikes at the root of his statement and what it is trying to say.  If it means that we become informed enough to develop a sound apologetic to address certain things, then I think that is good.  Also, if it means utilizing things such as new technology and even linguistic elements to more effectively communicate eternal truth in a way that relates to the world around us, I am definitely all on board with that.  Being Catholic does not mean you have to adopt the Luddite off-the-grid life of the Amish, nor does it mean we have to say "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me," like our Fundamentalist friends.  I don't think any responsible person of sound faith and good will could espouse stuff like that in all honesty.  At the same time "making the eternal present" does not mean we adopt and accept things contrary to the faith either, and it does not mean totally forgetting the traditions of the past as some propose in the Vatican right now.  We also have things like natural law to consider - the biological reality that there are two distinct yet complementary sexes/genders (yes, they are the same despite some rhetoric you hear) who together form a perfect union that ensures the continuation of the species.  That being said, "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction, and it is not something the Church has ever taught or promoted.  If anything, such heterodox nonsense as propped up by James Martin and the like actually regress the Catholic faith by making it mirror the pagans who persecuted the early Church - did the martyrs die for nothing?  The acceptance of sinful lifestyles in the name of "progress" or "justice" does not therefore in any way truly make present the eternal - if anything, it insults it.  It would be wise then for Fr, Michael to further elaborate what he means by his sentence. 

That all prefaces my own thoughts, as there is a bit of inspiration I got yesterday when for some reason my interest in giant saxophones and my faith sort of met at a crossroad of thought.  It is something that has been brewing in my mind for a while and I have not really been able to articulate it like I wanted to so I am going to try to do so here even if it takes me several days to pound it out in the keyboard.  As a Catholic, I believe in eternal truth, and don't believe in compromise on major tenets of it.  However, I am not so much against feasible adaptability either, especially when it is something that doesn't conflict with the eternal truth itself.  This is what I believe making eternal truth present in the particular time we live in is about.  As anyone knows who has read my stuff for a while and also who I have personally talked to, this informs my whole journey of faith - from my earliest Pentecostal days, to my participation in the Convergence Movement, to my embrace of some diverse ideas such as the old Catholic Apostolic Church movement of the 1830s as well as reading the whole heritage of the faith - I am not confined to just Aquinas or some Western theologians, although I value them, but I have a lot of other people who have shaped and formed both my faith and my particular worldview.  I have read the works of Manuel Lacunza as well as of Apostolos Makrakis, and that informs my eschatology as much as reading the Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser.  I also have drawn inspiration from Wesley and some Protestant people like him, including some modern writers I have read such as David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, A.W. Tozer, Kathryn Kuhlman, Watchman Nee, and others.  And, I picked up a lot from the Christian East as well, as I am thoroughly well-read in people such as Seraphim Rose (his commentary on Genesis is one of the best I have read), Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, Lev Gillet, and others.  I feel that these sources have given me perhaps a more well-rounded faith than I might otherwise have had, and while I will probably catch fire from both die-hard traditionalists as well as modernists, I don't frankly give a rat's behind about it because often you have to look under a few rocks to find gems, and it's what you do with them after you find them that matters.  This is where I want to get into my own perspective on my faith formation.

There are many writers I read and I like, and on occasion I may disagree with an issue here and there - that is natural.  What I have come to understand is that a point of disagreement does not necessarily warrant discarding the whole thing, but rather I use a well-worn cliche to explain how to process information.  Imagine if you will sitting down at your favorite pizza place for a meal, and you are very hungry.  However despite the fact you may only want plain cheese on your pizza, the chef in the back mistakingly sends you a supreme with everything on it.  What do you do?  It depends on how generous the toppings are on it.  In some cases, you just pick off the offending mushroom or pepper and eat the pizza anyway, and that is fine.  In other cases, if the pie is so loaded that you can't pick it all off, you just send it back and order the right pizza.  Another culinary example is this - let's say you go into a Waffle House and order the ribeye steak.  Now, if you have ever eaten at a Waffle House, you will know that the place is not noted for their steaks, are they?  For those who have had the adventure of a Waffle House ribeye, here is what you get - it is thin, grey-looking, and more full of gristle and fat than it is actual meat.  However, if you are hungry, you can eat it and satisfy your body's needs, but it will be a challenge - you can eat the meat, but you may have to spit out a lot of gristle and fat, and that could be almost 50% of the steak!  You still get a meal, but you have to find the tasty bits of it by spitting out a lot of junk.  Reading things can be like that as well - you can read a book, disagree with its fundamental thesis, but still take maybe a grain of wisdom from it.  The challenge is learning how to do this well.  For instance, I am a Biblical Creationist, and in all honesty I like watching some of Kent Hovind's earlier seminars as he did present some decent information back in the day before he went to prison for structuring assets illegally in the mid-2000s.  The problem with Hovind though is twofold - for one, he is a fundamentalist independent Baptist, which means that at times watching his material you have to wade through some ridiculous anti-Catholic diatribes (many of his sources for this come from Chick Publications - enough said!) as well as some wild but less-controversial theories like him saying Noah was originally a giant or something.  When you are watching this stuff, you have to ask yourself a question - what can I glean from this information that is useful?  As you watch it, ignoring the more outlandish things, you start to say "OK, now I can agree with that point," or "Yes, I can see the reasoning there,' and then it should inspire you to do your own research.  You may have come across a good detail, and once you do the footwork yourself, you find it has substance but can be refined a bit and cleaned up, and when it is the result is something good.  This is part of a forgotten skill called critical reading, and it helps you to exercise your own mental muscle.  Another guy I liked before his tragic and untimely passing was a speaker named Rob Skiba.  Rob did some good work, especially in the earlier days of his ministry.  However in the past couple of years before he passed on he got himself into "flat-earthism" and a few other odd things, but it didn't detract from some of his good earlier work.  However, likewise, there were things I had to spit out with Rob's teachings too -for instance, he actually believed carnivorous dinosaurs were actually a species of Nephilim, which was just, well, out there.  Skiba's and Hovind's material can be best equated with a diamond in a sewer - there is a lot of smelly crap, but the diamond in it is still valuable - it just needs to be cleaned up and given some TLC.  A true scholar will never shy away from even controversial or disagreeable material because ultimately you find something in it that is useful and can be salvaged.  It also settles something else - despite how good we are, we still fall short of perfection and are concupiscent beings.  We have to accept that and try to look at good things while throwing out bad things, and therefore it will enrich us in unexpected ways.  Disagreement is part of that - we live in an imperfect world, so we won't ever agree with everything.  But, we should be informed enough to use a gift called discernment to sort what is true, good, and beautiful from the rest.  At times it is easy, but in some cases it may be beyond redemption - for instance, there is no good to be salvaged from things such as prostitution, homosexuality, abuse, crime, and totalitarianism.  There are precious souls, created in God's image, that get caught up in that junk, and in that case they are the diamonds that need to be salvaged out of the crap, cleaned up, and turned into what God intended them to be.  Thing is, you have to find the diamond and salvage it first before you can clean it up.  That is what evangelization ultimately does for us.  This again is another aspect that is going to premise where I am going here, so bear with me.

Being able to discern truth from error, salvage good things from bad contexts, and drawing from a diverse reservoir are aspects that are essential to having a vision for what the Catholic Church as a whole should be.  The problem with these visions is that not everyone will see things exactly as you do, but they may have some things that refine and compliment your ideas, and that is where catholicity shows its real strength.  And, that is one part of it Fr. Michael missed in his long missive in the bulletin a couple of weeks ago - he was quick to dismiss traditionalists like the SSPX, but practically silent regarding actual threats to Christian faith that are glaringly obvious.  And, that leads to the third aspect that is important - consistency. If you are going to propose to implement something new, the major and integral question to ask is this - is it compatible with the historical Deposit of Faith?  If it is, then I would say to refine it somewhat and see where it fits.  By this point, you may already have figured that when I speak of the Catholic Church, I am not referring to the official Vatican apparatus - if anything, the official Church has neglected her historic roots in favor of a misinterpretation of what Fr. Michael said about "making eternal truth present to our particular time."  Truth is not arbitrary - you either accept it or you don't, but you don't alter truth to fit the times, but rather adopt those things within the particular time to conform to the truth.  Many Vatican officials and Church bureaucrats get this backwards, and they are rejecting good things while embracing wrong things.  The consistency is lacking, in other words.  So, again it begs the question of what constitutes being "Catholic," and who falls short.  Some like Fr. Michael, despite noble intentions, miss this by infinity.  However, the times we live in right now dictate that we understand what being truly Catholic is, and it may mean looking beyond the confines of Pope Leo and the conciliar Vatican Church.  A true reform, revival, and a clearer definition of what it means to be Catholic is essential now, and this is where I am going to start my proposal by first revisiting the Brazilian Pentecostals for a moment. 

The Christian Congregation in Brazil, as noted in the last discussion, was the result of the missionary efforts of an Italian-American evangelist by the name of Luigi Francescon beginning sometime around 1910.  One of the very unique aspects of this movement, much like its American sister Pentecostal denomination the Apostolic Faith Mission in Portland, OR, is the use of large orchestras in its services, and I found that quite interesting.  When people think of the term "Pentecostal," often what comes to mind is ladies in "glory buns" hopping around banging tambourines and speaking in tongues.  It conjures imagery of popular stereotypes of religious fervor in the American South, and there are Pentecostals who do that.  Thing is, that is not all Pentecostals though.  Even in the US, the Apostolic Faith Mission represents a type of old-time Pentecostalism that is formal, reserved, and ordered, and while the spiritual gifts are accepted and practiced, it is always within a certain context.  Likewise, we look at even revivalists in the Charismatic movement of the 1960s and 1970s such as Kathryn Kuhlman, and it is actually quite reverent.  In the developing world, many Pentecostals are similar, and this Brazilian group exemplifies that.  However, don't take being reverent and formal as being stuck in a time warp, because it was actually highly innovative of the Brazilian Pentecostals to adapt new instrumentation such as contrabass, subcontrabass, and now even an octocontrabass saxophone into their worship, and for me that is intriguing on so many levels.  Likewise, you think of renewal movements within historic Churches too over the centuries - the CAC, and in Armenia you had the Brotherhood of Lovers of the Church, which brought into the traditional Armenian Church a sort of spiritual renewal movement.  When I was trying to find out more about this group, I noticed many Evangelicals have been also studying it with interest, and in one article I came across by a Romanian Anglican author named Danut Manastireanu, he referenced an Armenian historian named Alexander Agadjanian who said "the Brotherhood was both an imitation of Protestant forms of piety and mission, and at the same time a protective reaction against Protestants from within the Armenian Apostolic tradition," a concept called "union of love" (Danut Manastireanu, "The Brotherhood of the Armenian Apostolic Church: An Oriental Orthodox Renewal Movement," East-West Church Report, 26:2 (2017?) at https://eastwestreport.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=622:the-brotherhood-of-the-armenian-apostolic-church-an-oriental-orthodox-renewal-movement&catid=113:e-26-2&Itemid=1350 - Accessed August 5, 2026).  This is similar to the idea that my late friend and Armenian Pentecostal pastor Dr. Krikor Haleblian wrote of in his book The Armenian Church in Context, which emphasized how both established tradition and evangelical renewal needed to compliment with each other.  This is also one of the convictions that led to the the Chicago Call meetings in 1977 which prefaced the Convergence Movement, and relied heavily on the writings of people such as Robert Webber.  I doubt if those dear Brazilian Pentecostals have any connection to any of this, but they do embody an aspect of it.  This is what I believe truly making eternal truth relevant to our particular age is all about - it doesn't compromise it, but can embrace things that are not in conflict with it.  Fr. Michael unfortunately in his bulletin discourse failed to even dialogue about it - it was as if he didn't care because he was part of the "party line" and knew little about spiritual renewal, and that was shocking given he is a part of a religious order - the Dominicans - who historically have been gifted with the charism of preaching.  You would think that spiritually-sensitive Dominicans would be screaming for renewal in the Catholic Church, but then you have Fr. Michael sounding more like an aloof Jesuit than a custodian of a charism his religious order possesses.  That was perhaps more sobering to me than anything in all honesty.  However, unlike in the Armenian Church, there was never an organized movement for spiritual renewal I am aware of in the Roman Church - the Charismatic Renewal in the 1960s impacted many for sure, and of course many Franciscans, a number of Dominicans, and even the occasional devout Jesuit were part of it, but as a charism it was never emphasized. Perhaps had that been the case, the issues that have plagued the modern Roman Church would not be existent, or at least they would be manageable and dealt with better than they have been.  Also, in recent decades the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church has sort of deflated - you still have some prayer groups and communities, but nothing on the scale they once were.  In a way, I can see why - the Pentecostalization of some Catholic charismatics led to the introduction of the babblings of televangelists, and that was off-putting to more traditional Catholics.  True spiritual renewal needs to bring a new appreciation to traditions, and in doing so it makes being Catholic a more fulfilling thing than it is for many.  It is at this point I wanted to introduce my own model before wrapping up the discussion.

To begin, let me reiterate what I mean by "Catholic" - I am not speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, nor of the current dumpster-fire that is the Vatican right now.  If anything, while some have the trappings of Catholicity, they are not actually Catholic.  I take a position that both encompasses the literal meaning of the word - universal - as well as noting that authentic Catholic faith can exist outside of Pope Leo's control.  As a Continuing Anglican Churchman, I was probably more Catholic then than I am now as a part of the official Roman Church, and I held many of the same convictions then I do now. There are a lot of good, faithful, and orthodox Anglicans whom I believe can rightly be called Catholic, and I also see it in other churches as well - the Orthodox of course without question, and also groups like the Polish National Church and some Old Catholic jurisdictions, as well as Roman sedevacantists and larger traditional movements like the SSPX.   To this regard, I also apply the Vincentian Canon - the Catholic faith is that believed at all times, in all places by everyone.  It reveres sacramental theology, liturgical worship, and the richness of Tradition, but at the same time is open to winds of renewal and reform where needed.  By that standard, many so-called Roman Catholics fall short, but many Anglicans and others meet the criteria.  This settles one thing - the Church is the Church, and it is universal, but it is not necessarily under the authority of one man (meaning Pope Leo XIV).  So, unlike Fr. Michael's allegation that traditionalists want to "step out" of the Catholic faith and say "the Church is no longer Catholic," he misses the point.  No one says the Church is no longer Catholic, but the tares in the wheatfield, many of whom hold high offices in ecclesiastical structure, may be the ones who are no longer Catholic.  If a Pope elevates idols in a church (as Francis did) or calls a mosque inside the Vatican "a holy place," (as Leo just did), that forfeits their faith as Catholics.  And, when a "priest" like James Martin prances around and proclaims gay "marriage" is "a blessing," he too ceases to be Catholic.  They abandoned the faith, not us, and not God's Remnant Church.  The Church does have boundaries, standards, and a historically defined faith that cannot be changed, and even if engaging with the present is a thing, it means doing so without compromising "the faith once and for all handed to the saints."  So, what is the vision of the true Catholic faith?  Let me give you mine.

If I had the capacity to enact reforms in the Church, here are some of them:

1.  Restore holiness to the ministry, and make clergy strictly accountable to the Deposit of Faith.  If they deviate from it significantly, they forfeit their right to be priests.

2.  Encourage spiritual renewal.  The Evangelicals and Pentecostals have some good things we could use, such as home Bible studies, revival meetings, and other things that deepen one's faith.  Perhaps finding ways to adapt these to Catholic practice would not be a bad thing.

3. Really recognize talents and gifts of others.  Instead of just seeing how much someone puts in the collection plate, for once actually mean it when the whole "time, talent, and treasure" spiel happens with every bishop's appeal letter. There are many people who have great potential to serve Christ and his Church, and the clergy would do well to really reach out and encourage them.  Too many pastors don't even know what the hell their members look like, and that is nothing short of scandalous.  

4.  Proliferation of the arts and literature.  The Church should be a bastion of culture, and not in the "Seven-Mountain Mandate" nonsense that some hyper-charismatics espouse.  Like those Brazilian Pentecostals, encourage the use of new and interesting musical instruments like contrabass saxophones in liturgical music, but also encourage the blossoming of culture outside the church doors too.   It is time that more symphonic works, pieces of literature, and other things happened, and if there is spiritual renewal, there should also be a cultural renaissance that comes with it. 

5. Rebuilding the Sense of Community in Churches - this is a big one!  Too many people feel alone and forgotten about, and often don't even feel welcomed in the average Catholic parish.  It is time to change that, and the clergy need to model the example.

These are just five proposals I have to reinvigorate church life, but I sadly don't see hope inside those churches in communion with the Vatican.  The Vatican and its hierarchy have become bureaucratic and political, and they don't give a damn about the average person in the pews of the parish.  If they did, then junk like Traditionis Custodius would not have happened.  Perhaps if the Pope would stop being a politician for once and actually shepherd his people as the Vicar of Christ he claims to be, the Church would undergo a transformation unlike anything seen in generations.  It would also mean that a lot of nominalism, CINO's (Catholics in Name Only), and other riff-raff would fall away, and good riddance - since they were not truly Catholic (or for that matter even Christian in the broadest sense) the Church would do better without them.  Many voices in the nominal Church now cry out for justice, but they have no faith - their actions have politicized theology, and people suffer worse because of it.  Perhaps if some had an actual inner conversion, the outward transformation of the society around them would happen.  Could you imagine Baltimore for instance if Catholics started actually acting Christian and believing true faith??  I have a feeling this city would get cleaned up in a matter of weeks - the abandoned rowhouses would be gone, the trash cleaned up off the streets, and an overhaul of a corrupt city government would then make the path clear for true justice in this city.  It's a tall order yes, but with God all things are possible.  Prayer support is the major factor, and that is where it starts.  Clean house in the Church, and it will positively impact society.  That is the missing factor.

Well, you get an idea of where I am going with all this now, so the challenge is yours - will you be truly Catholic, or will you remain comfortable in a parish church where Pope Leo doesn't know and could care less about your existence (and sadly, this is true even of local parish pastors in many areas too).  Search your heart, study to show yourself approved, and then let the evidence speak to you for itself - you might be surprised.  Thanks again for bearing with me, and see you next time. 

Reflections on Some of My Musical Interests - The True Giants in the Room

 I wasn't planning on writing again so soon, but a happy diversion caught my interest and I wanted to talk a little about it.  It involves music, and this is something I have been observing from afar but haven't had the resources to experience first-hand, but my, do I want to.  When I was in high school, I played saxophone in the school band - I started in 8th grade learning the alto sax, then was officially a part of the band in 9th grade when I played tenor, and then in my 10th and 11th grade years I played baritone sax, earning a letter and also becoming one of the senior members of our marching band.  Other than a brief bucket-list work with a society band when I was in college, it has been over 30 years since I last picked up a saxophone, and I am very rusty!  I do currently own a curved soprano, and one day when all the dust settles I want to maybe brush up a bit so I can play a little.  I love the soprano sax - it has a sweet sound, and it is compact and easy to transport.  But, I really miss playing baritone, and I also have always wanted to tackle the bass sax.  Up until perhaps I was in my early 20s, the bass sax was the biggest saxophone I knew of, and it was a mythical creature to me - I heard it occasionally on records, but never got a chance to see one much.  That is, until my seventh-grade year of middle school.  Let me tell that story a bit.

Romney Junior High School, where I more or less went to my whole tenure of middle school between the years 1983 and 1985, was not the best experience - frankly I hated it.  I was not a rich kid, definitely not a popular kid, and was often the subject of bullying and harassment from both the popular crowd as well as the rougher kids.  I dressed different, talked different, and listened to radically different music - you see, in my 6th grade year I was introduced to my first records in my collection, and by the time I started middle school a year later, I had perhaps a couple of hundred of them.  Music was my outlet from the stressful life of middle school during the week and facing a lack of financial stability at home (it gradually got better, but it was not easy).  I would listen to my collection I had on Friday night, and then listened to Henry Boggan's Sunday night show on WBT-AM, which got me basically started in collecting this music.  The more I got into my music, the more I also wanted to learn to play this great stuff too, and thankfully my middle school music teacher got me hooked up with saxophone lessons in the second half of my 8th grade year.  The man who taught us had two students - the other was a classmate of mine named Samantha, who was learning the sousaphone.  He was a good teacher, and I nailed the basics enough to land a place in the high school band a year later when we had moved and I started a new school - I had graduated to tenor sax, and played in the school jazz band with that while playing cymbals in the marching band.  The second half of my freshman year though was more tragic - we had moved to the small town of Rowlesburg in early 1985, and that year the town and most of our state was hit with a devastating flood that decimated the town.  Being the high school I started going to there had to operate like a MASH unit - we had classes in the Buckwheat Festival Hall in the county seat of Kingwood, and band was considered a luxury no one could really afford, as many students were recovering from flood damage to their homes and there were more pressing needs.  In contrast to the cliquish nonsense I experienced in middle school, in my freshman year I was able to be a classmate to a number of really brave kids who bonded together in the midst of what was probably the worst adversity they ever faced.  They accepted me with no prerequisites, and even today I am still friends with a number of them.  However, I did miss the band, but that would change when I became a sophomore the following year.

My sophomore year of high school got off to a rocky start - I was attending East Preston in nearby Terra Alta after my mom took a job taking care of an elderly nonagenarian lady out in the area of Salt Lick.  My first new months were an adjustment, but as the school year kicked off I began to find my place, and as it would turn out, my attendance at East Preston for the remainder of my high school years would end up being three of the best years of my life.  It was good to get back into the marching band again then, and our band teacher, the late Kenneth Garlow, was very happy to let me take up the baritone sax.  Being a "band geek" in high school was actually a fun experience, and let me give you a bit of that life now.

Unlike the regular classes during the year, the band was a big commitment - you had parades and concerts to play year round, and that meant essentially traveling all over West Virginia.  My weekends were usually spent traveling to parades, and during the summers I got to do a lot of that as well.  You will never truly appreciate the life of a traveling musician until you have to change clothes on a crowded bus with 40 other students, half of which were girls.  Most of us who were guys just wore our band uniforms over our street clothes, and although it could get a bit hot and sweaty having layers of clothes like that one, we did pretty well.  Some of the guys were smart - they wore shorts and t-shirts under their uniforms, so they suffered a bit less and their changing times were better too.  In the winter it was a bit better, as two things were true at once.  For one, it often was a good idea to wear your uniform over your clothes when it was 35 degrees out in the late Fall, and we also had a lot of other concerts that were indoors so changing was a bit more comfortable with the uniforms.  It was also good to carry a bit of spare cash with you too, as often we would stop off to eat and we also would tend to visit a mall if we went to bigger towns like Morgantown or Clarksburg - it was Mr. Garlow's reward to us for doing well at our performance.  I particularly liked the Meadowbrook Mall in Bridgeport, as it was considered "fancy" for small-town kids like us to visit there.  As an adult later, going to the mall was just something you did to spend a few bucks and get out of the house, and indeed, for eight years we had Valley Mall right next door to us in Hagerstown.  Back then though, even visiting a Pizza Hut was a treat. Sometimes, I miss the thrill of simple pleasures like that, as my battle-weary adult persona has forgotten the mystery that surrounded stull like that.  

On occasion, as one of the older members of the band, I would get called upon to do some things in a pinch.  On one occasion, our bass clarinetist who was a girl named Sherry ended up getting extremely sick when we were at a band competition, and the piece we were playing as a concert group rather than a marching band was called the Kensington Overture. It was a nice piece of music, but there was this solo part in it that, my goodness, was a bit challenging!  The solo was originally designated for a bass clarinet part, but being Mr. Garlow was a guy who followed the Coast Guard's Latin slogan "Semper Paratus," he wanted me to learn the solo as well.  Oh, did I struggle with that!  The key changes in that thing were a nightmare, but they sounded nice if they were played properly.  I did manage to learn it passably, and Garlow thankfully had enough confidence that I could pull it off if necessary.  And, then wouldn't you know it, Sherry falls ill!  So, I got the solo, and surprisingly I pulled it off with no issues and we scored decently with that.  It was at that point I knew I had mastered the baritone sax, and that was a proud moment for me.  As time went on, I mastered some routinely jazz and dance band techniques too, such as the "slurping sax" sound of Billy May's orchestra as well as the Lombardo vibrato.  That would come in handy later.  But, my career as a high school band musician would end when I finished my junior year, as Mr. Garlow retired that year, and I was not exactly too connected with the new teacher, Mr. Caplinger, so I retired from service as well.  It was a good experience for me, and the only regret is that I didn't keep my chops up all these years with practice.  I shudder to think of what I would sound like now, although I do still know how to play.  Like I said, once things simmer down a bit and I get more settled, I might just take it back up with my little curved soprano (I also possess a Xaphoon, which is also called a "Bamboo Sax."  It sounds something like a cross between a clarinet and an alto sax, but I have yet to master that too).  Also, I always wanted to play the trombone, so should I maybe venture there?  We'll see - let me get back into practice with the saxophone first!

I give my background with playing sax myself to talk about the one fascination I have had with that for years.  I always was enamored with rare and big instruments, and that is one reason why I took up the baritone sax - it was the biggest available.  What I really wanted to get my hands on though was a bass saxophone, but they were a bit hard to come by - even recordings of people playing it were rare then.  Going back to my years in middle school, I hung out a lot in the school library, and even had a study hall in there.  Surprisingly, for a small West Virginia town, the school had a subscription to Down Beat magazine, which then was the the major jazz publication on the market.  Down Beat in the mid-1980s was beginning however to shift from classic jazz to what we now call "smooth jazz," but even then there were still some good informative articles in it.  It was in an issue of the magazine that I came across a guy named Vince Giordano, who like me became enamored with early dance bands and he took up the bass saxophone.  Prior to him, there were essentially two names associated with the instrument: one was Adrian Rollini in the 1920s, and the other was Boyd Raeburn in the 1940s.  Rollini was the one though who put the bass sax on the map, and come to find out there is a rich deposit of his classic material from the 1920s and the early 1930s, playing in orchestras like Whiteman's, as well as with Fred Elizalde, the Filipino-American bandleader who did a lot for dance bands in both England and the US.  He later had his own orchestra, and had played with the likes of Bix Beiderbecke, Benny Goodman, Jack Teagarden, Glenn Miller, Frankie Trumbauer, Henry Busse, the Dorseys, and so many others.  In my current collection that is mostly digital, I probably have close to a thousand records with either Rollini as a sideman or as a leader, and I became a big fan of his as a teenager.  Apparently, Vince Giordano did as well, even painstakingly transcribing Rollini's work to recreate it.  I talked to Vince a couple of times over the years, and he is a wealth of information on the dance bands of the 1920s.  As I would learn in the late 1990s though, the bass sax was still a small fish compared to three of its big brothers that began to surface.  

The first I had heard about the contrabass sax was in the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, which listed it as the largest member of the saxophone family.  As far as I am aware, no one had played one, with the possible exception of Sigurd Rascher, and finding one was almost an exercise in futility prior to 1995.  Then, something happened - a guy named Don Stephens formed a saxophone quintet called the Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra, and Stephens would later add the mighty contrabass to the group's recorded repertoire.  This beast is 7 feet tall and weighs about 50 pounds, and seeing the case alone that it is housed in is awe-striking.  As a new interest in the contrabass started to take off in the late 1990s, some influential figures in traditional jazz began to record with it, notably Scott Robinson who featured it on his phenomenal album Thinking Big.  Then, it started being manufactured - the first one I had heard about was the full-sized one produced by Corsi in the late 1990s, but in the early 2000s the German instrument maker Benedickt Eppelsheim began experimenting with designs, and not only did he come up with a full-sized contra, but he also created a whole new range of instruments that mirrored the larger saxes called the Tubax.  The Tubax is not large - it is about the size of a standard baritone sax - but it echoed the range initially of the contra, but then Eppelsheim got more adventurous and created a subcontrabass Tubax.  This was perhaps the first attempt to get an even larger saxophone on the market, one that would even transcend Adolph Sax's original vision, and although it was still quite compact and not an actual contrabass saxophone, it still had the sound.  From there then we move to Brazil, and this is where the J'Elle Stainer Company came into focus.

The success of Eppelsheim's Tubax naturally spawned interest in even bigger and lower-register saxophones, and in the mid-2000s this Brazil-based company called J'Elle Stainer created the actual subcontrabass saxophone.  The first one was a compact model - it was huge, but stood about the same height as a bass saxophone.  However, they later wowed the world with the first full-sized subcontra, and that was something that blew the wildest imagination.  This monster stands about 9 feet tall, weighs in at around 70 pounds, and its register is so low that it will vibrate the guts of anyone sitting near it while it is being played.  One guy on YouTube actually did a dual with a pipe organist, and the range of both instruments is equal - the thing is massive!  And, it has several musicians who specialize playing it, including the Italian saxophonist Attilio Berni, concert saxophonist Jay Easton, and there is one other American artist with an Italian name whose CD I had but I cannot recall him for the life of me.  Even some contrabass players like Blaize Garza are now flirting a bit with the subcontra too.  I really wish I had my original CD collection, as there are a few others worth mentioning on this too - Paul Cohen definitely comes to mind, and I need to replace his very good CD showcasing some of these monsters. Composers likewise, such as the talented Adam Gilberti, have also featured this as well as some other whopper instruments (octobass flute, etc) in his Genesis Concert.  However, as would be discovered, the story definitely didn't end there.

The search for the world's largest saxophone did not end with the subcontra, as yet a bigger brother of it came along in just the recent past few years.  What we are talking about is the octocontrabass saxophone, and as of this time I don't think a full-sized one has been made yet although in Brazil at least one compact sized instrument is in existence - Brazil has a unique role in the evolution of the saxophone in recent years, and as you will see, what makes it more fascinating is that its biggest proponent is a small Pentecostal denomination there.   Getting back to the octocontrabass though, if it were to be manufactured as a full-sized standard saxophone, it would be over 13 feet in height and a preteen child could fit into its bell.  I am not sure who manufactured the flagship octocontra, but it is in Brazil, and yes, it is to be found in a church of all places!  Before I get into that though, it is important to note that like the slightly smaller subcontra, the octocontra hasn't had a lot of people producing serious compositions with it yet, with two exceptions - one is Slovene composer Igor Krivokapic, who composed his Fifth Symphony: Seven Trumpets of the Apocalypse, that features it.  Another composer, Dutchman Jan Van de Roost, also features a part for it in his composition Colores.  I still have yet to find these either as CD recordings or online, but I plan to search them out.  The most visible and prominent featuring of this massive beast for now is actually in church music, and in Brazil!  Let me tell that story now.

The Christian Congregation in Brazil is a stable Pentecostal denomination with roots in Italian Pentecostalism in the US that also produced denominations like the CCNA (Christian Church in North America), a fairly mainstream Evangelical Pentecostal denomination that holds beliefs similar to the Assemblies of God.  As I am reading about this, it appears that the Christian Congregation is worldwide, and does have American congregations - they date back to an Italian-American Pentecostal evangelist by the name of Luigi Francescon (1866-1964).  Francescon is also credited as being the founder of the CCNA as well as the CCUS, and he is essentially the father of Italian-American Pentecostalism.  Much like Florence Crawford's Apostolic Faith Mission in Oregon, the Italian groups tended to be more reserved and conservative in their worship, and a hallmark of their churches was the orchestra accompanied by an organ.  When Francescon began the mission work in Brazil that resulted in the establishment of the Christian Congregation in Brazil, the churches in that group kept that legacy and many of them ended up even today with some large orchestras that would rival the size of the official symphonic orchestras in many major cities.  For some odd reason, those Brazilian churches also latched on in the early 2000s to these massive saxophones, and therefore you see their orchestras filled with a dozen or more bass, contrabass, and subcontrabass saxes, many of them compliments of the J'Elle Stainer Company (I wonder if their executive leadership is part of this group, due to the large number of their saxes in those orchestras?).  Recently, the one and only octocontrabass sax showed up in their orchestras too, played by a young man named Bruno Ribeiro Valadares.  Much like Blaize Garza in the US here, Valadares seems to be a saxophone prodigy, and he has mastered the monsters.  He plays well too, as I have had the privilege of watching his videos on both Instagram and YouTube. 

I think what I will do with this point is conclude, as it is late, and I want to do a second part of this focusing on some wild ideas I am having that intersect my music interest and my Catholic faith.  After all, if Pentecostals can "embrace the present" by adopting a rather large and unusual musical instrument, then why can't we?  That is what I will talk about in the next part of this.  Have a good night everyone, and will see you soon. 

The Ethiopian Bible - Some Reflections

 In recent weeks, I have seen an increased interest in the Ethiopic Canon of Scripture, which is of interest because it is much bigger than your typical Catholic or Protestant Bibles - it has several other "lost books" (they are actually not lost to anyone, but just not widely translated) that are not included in Catholic or Protestant Bibles, and thus it has some reactions.  The typical Catholic scholar doesn't pay attention to it, and the Evangelical Protestant scholars (with a few exceptions) treat it like an abomination.   An official Ethiopian Bible that is translated into English as yet does not exist, although there are some English translations of it that are largely unofficial.  By an official translation, I mean in the strictest sense a translation that is sanctioned and approved by the Ethiopian Church.  There have been a couple of issues with this in recent years, so I will get into that briefly.

In past years, when an "official Ethiopian" document of any type has surfaced, it was in reality more than likely a production of the Rastafarian sects who have no official connection to the actual Ethiopian Church or its people.  There have been some good English translations of other Ethiopian texts - notably the Kebra Negast and the Fetha Negast - but as far as I am aware, no actual Church-sanctioned Biblical translation exists.  One has to be wary of what happens to pass as "Ethiopian" on platforms like Ebay or Amazon, because even if they are liturgical texts, often they are corrupted Rastafarian creations and are of no historical or theological value.  This is why it is important to do your due diligence before purchasing anything, because you could end up wasting your hard-earned cash on some cultic book.  I personally always try to search with the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church's American dioceses first, as well as the Geez-Rite Catholic parishes.  Usually, their clerics will be very helpful in directing you to credible books on their church and its history and theology, including their Biblical topics.   That being said, let me tell you of one feasible - albeit unofficial - English translation of the Ethiopian Bible I have come across. 

If one goes on sites like Temu or Ebay, you will see tons of offers for "The Complete Ethiopian Bible," and I tend to shy away from popular translations of stuff like that because more than likely something is fishy about them.  Most of these faux translations are generally plagiarized from a legitimate source, the work of Asher Wilson.  Asher Wilson is thankfully not a Rastafarian fruitcake, as his credentials seem to be as an Evangelical Lutheran; he coordinated his original work with a Dr. Rance Settle, and upon looking into his credentials, here is what I learned.  Dr. Settle is a pastor and theologian who currently pastors the Lamb of God Lutheran Church in Lewisville, TX, and he graduated with a D.Min. from Concordia Theological Seminary.   This is a church that is part of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod denomination, which means it is a pretty solidly orthodox and Evangelical church.  Concordia Seminary, based in Fort Wayne, IN, is also considered a credible graduate school and is also affiliated with the LCMS too.  So, Dr. Settle is not some off-the-wall quack or a hyper-charismatic or anything like that, which helps.  While there is not much available on Asher Wilson's credentials, he does have a website for his publishing company, Holy Word Press, and it can be accessed at www.holywordpress.com.  This is also the place where you can purchase the Ethiopic Bible translation he has produced - with the Bible translation itself is also an additional study guide, and I purchased both of them earlier this year.  The study guide itself is perhaps more intriguing than the translation, as it is thoroughly researched and includes discussion questions, a glossary, and a lot of historical background commentary.  I think it could have some value, as the publication is actually quite good and it seems that Wilson and Settle did their homework on it.  Again, however, this is not an officially-sanctioned translation of the Ethiopian Church, but thankfully it has also invested good scholarship.  A lot of the knockoffs I have been seeing that are mass-marketed seem to be stolen from Wilson's work, and Wilson is aware of it - on his official Ebay store page, he certifies his own work as genuine, and also issues a disclaimer about these knockoffs too.  If you want to see the actual book, here is a photo of it and the study guide below:

This comes directly from Holy Word Press's website, so it is the real thing.   Any other books similar to this that don't have an official documentation of the author's name should be avoided.  Some may disagree about the value of Asher Wilson's and Dr. Settle's work, but I am going to give it the benefit of the doubt for now until a Church-sanctioned translation is released. 

The Ethiopian Bible has become a source of increased attention.  Evangelical apologist Melissa Dougherty, for instance, released a whole video discussing it last month, and I am a bit wary of watching that as she tends to have some mildly anti-Catholic sentiments that tend to come out in her discussions, and while as an apologist I think she is quite capable (her work documenting the influence of New Thought teaching into certain hyper-charismatic circles, for instance, is quite good, perhaps the best since Hank Hanegraaff published his Christianity in Crisis 30 years ago) I see her biases interfering with her objectivity when it comes to the Ethiopian Canon.  On the other hand, there is my good friend Dr. Stephen Missick, who like myself has been an advocate for Middle Eastern Christian minorities for many years.  Stephen wrote a good book on Ethiopic Christian literature called Ethiopic Abdias: The Lives of the Twelve Apostles According to the Traditions of Africa.  Since he has just published it recently, I just received my copy of it last week and am still reading through it, but so far I like it.  As I just have stated, Stephen notes that an official translation of the Ethiopic Bible has not been made available yet, but he also found out as I did that the Ethiopian Church in the US is working on an English translation, and I intend to have one once they do for sure.  While Stephen and I differ on some minor things (for instance, I tend to agree with the Watchers theory of fallen angels messing around with human women as a source of where the demons come from, something talked about in the Book of Enoch, but Stephen is uncommitted to that interpretation, and I don't fault him for it), I believe both of us are excited to see an Ethiopian Bible in English that is official because we study and research the same things.  Indeed, the release of that when it comes will be monumental to Biblical scholarship in general, and I don't think it will be a minor news item when it happens.  So, we wait.  

In this area where I live now - Baltimore - I am approximately 30 miles from what is perhaps the largest Ethiopian-American community in the country, that being the areas of Bethesda, MD, and Alexandria, VA.  Likewise, there is a growing Eritrean population in the same area as well.  There are perhaps dozens of Orthodox churches in those areas, as well as at least three Geez-Rite Catholic communities, and thus there is no shortage of richness when it comes to getting to know these good people.  Even in Baltimore, we have 7 Ethiopian churches and one Eritrean church, and that is a good opportunity because they are within reasonable distance to visit.  I have made some good friends in their community, as well as being able to eat in their restaurants, shop in their stores, and yes, I did visit one of their churches in Alexandria a few years back.  The Ethiopians are a remarkable people, and they take their Christian faith seriously - I have come to really love them as a people too, as they are always open to share their rich history and Church traditions with me.  The most recent example of this was an Ethiopian-American who was my Uber driver home from work one day - I had a very delightful conversation with him on the ride home, and he was more or less telling me where Ethiopian culture could be found in Baltimore (he recommended a good Ethiopian restaurant I have to try too - I happen to love sega tibs, a delicious stir-fried beef dish that is addictive).  There is also one common thing I hear from practically every Ethiopian I talked to, and I tend to believe them and agree with them - the tradition is that Ethiopia is where the original Ark of the Covenant is, and there is a tiny church in the region of Axum that apparently houses it.  When I voice this to others, I understandably receive a skeptical response - one Orthodox bishop I talked to even said "show us an Ark and I will believe it."  I don't fault that skepticism, and it is really not a cardinal issue to split hairs over, but my response is always a calm smile and I tell them, "that's fair - wait and see."  The fact is for me though is that two things convince me of the fact this could be true.  For one, practically every Ethiopian I have talked to believes it.  Secondly, that tradition has been very longstanding in Ethiopia, so there has to be something to it.  It pays to listen to things when they are universally held convictions and there is a track record of whatever it is, and the Ethiopian Ark theory falls into that for me.  Modern scholarship, thanks to an over-reliance on the Cartesian influence from the Enlightenment, has become almost too skeptical for its own good.  Theology and History are not exempt from those influences either, which is why so many Catholic scholars in particular are swayed by the Teilhardian/Cartesian variety of theistic evolution when it comes to origins.  I think we do a disservice when we become so focused on the natural, physical, and tangible that we forget there is also a metaphysical dimension to reality as well.  Neither is better than the other, and both can be equally true at once.  This is why I am giving my Ethiopian friends the benefit of the doubt.  

It was my friend Stephen's video that got me thinking about this, so I just wanted to weigh in a bit.  Thanks for allowing me to share, and I will continue to update what I learn in regard to the Ethiopian Bible, including possibly a whole "deep dive" into Asher Wilson's and Dr. Rance Settle's work on their translation and study guide of it.  God bless, and will see you next time. 

Random Thoughts

 It is the first day of August as I write this, and I come with a lot of things going on in my mind.  For one thing, I decided that it was time to find another parish church after the pastor decided to focus on nonessential stuff like the SSPX (the nearest SSPX chapel to Baltimore is almost 2 hours away, so what was the point?) while ignoring some pretty looming issues in the Catholic Church in this city.  For one thing, the unfair characterization of the SSPX as "Protestant" was a bit much, and theologically it doesn't jive - where our good friar got that from evades my process of reasoning.  I had a very interesting email exchange with him most of today, and I think it best to move on at this point.  But that leads me to something I wanted to talk about in regard to how one can serve the Church.

Romans 12:4-5 states that the body has many members, and although each member has its own distinct function, they are all essential to the Body of Christ.  For all the rhetoric in annual diocesan appeals about investing "time, talent, and treasure," when the reality hits as to how to apply it, basically it is the diocesan powers-that-be saying "Give us your money, and screw your talents."  In other words, if they don't think you are "good enough" (although your hard-earned money you put in the plate is certainly OK) then they don't care what happens to you.  It amazes me at how many people languish in parishes who have so much to offer but they are coldly turned away by aloof clerics when they offer.  It's a scandal.  So, that leads to a question.

What is the difference between a parish priest and a televangelist?  Answer: the first has only a plate to collect in.  This is obviously not a blanket assessment of every parish priest, because there are many who do have a pastor's heart and love their parishioners, but I have seen it firsthand and it is not a good thing.  When the color of your money matters to a church more than your talents, abilities, and even your needs, then it is time to find another church and maybe cut off your money supply to them.  You may not even be giving much in some terms, but it may also be your best despite the amount.  Yet, you are for some reason not feeling appreciated, and it is a bit disconcerting.  Now, the idea of tithing is not a "give to get" scheme of course, but at the same time you are hoping that maybe something of your faithfulness would garner some appreciation of the fact that you, too, are a child of God and deserve some dignity.  I don't want to spend a lot of time commiserating over this, as I have wasted enough on it today already, but I want my readers to get a good message out of this - if you have a talent, find a way to use it for God.  If your church doesn't appreciate it or even care, then they can jump off a short pier into a deep lake, because thankfully God is bigger than them.  One of the reasons I started this blog as a matter of fact was to actually make a platform to share my ideas as well as develop a writing passion I have, and I think I have done well.  I am not garnering millions of views, but that is because no one else cares to listen anyway but I appreciate the ones who do.  You who are reading this now, you are not reading it by accident - you matter because God sent you here.  Therefore, if something I said challenges you and also motivates you, then I have done what I am supposed to do.  And, critics be damned - we don't worry about them, or detractors.  Not everyone is going to be adoring fans, and I get that - I myself have things I am not a fan of either, yet those things seem to be doing fine without me anyway.  May my detractors gain the same understanding.  

This is a good segway into what I discovered online today.  I was watching videos by this young guy named Jonathan Wright, who has taken it upon himself to do deep-dive research into Contemporary Christian Music (CCM).  As anyone who knows me can attest, CCM is definitely not my thing, as much of what passes as "Christian music" today is fluff and it is about making a fast buck rather than actual ministry - Jonathan seems to share that sentiment with me to a degree too.  But, I also admittedly learned some things from him about some very well-known CCM artists of the past, and I found it personally interesting.  One thing Jonathan did was he did a bit of a deep-dive into CCM star and my fellow West Virginian Michael W. Smith.  Now, Barbara loves this guy, and it's OK if anyone does as I don't think anyone will fall into moral turpitude listening to him.  However, to me it sounds like the guy - who is in his 60s now - never broke puberty in all honesty with his voice ( I feel the same way about Bobby Vinton, who sings similarly interesting enough).  There are many newer CCM artists who sound even worse than him now though, so he is definitely not the worst I have ever heard.  That being said though, I will say that I was impressed to hear about his story.  It turns out in the early part of his career as he was starting out in Nashville, he hit rock-bottom with cocaine use or something, and told God to do anything to get his attention, even breaking his legs if necessary.  Thankfully that didn't happen, but Michael did have a sort of renewal of his faith and in all honesty although his singing sucks his personal story is inspiring.  Then there was the story of Rich Mullins, who also died prematurely at the height of his popularity.  Mullins is the guy who wrote that well-known chorus "Our God is an Awesome God," and it's a good piece of worship music in all honesty.  However, this Indiana-born Quaker farm boy was also one who did his own thing, and although he faced a lot of challenges (including alcohol issues), an observer of his story comes away realizing this man was genuine, consistent, and there is much to admire about him as a person - despite making literally millions in royalties, Mullins chose to live on a modest $25K a year and he also kept his profile minimal.  Then come to find out, he was just on the verge of converting to the Catholic Church when he was killed in a tragic car accident in 1997.  I feel the same way about Michael W. Smith and Rich Mullins though that I also do about people like Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, and Gene Simmons - not a fan of the music, but respect them as decent human beings.   It also works the other way too - for instance, I love Billy Strayhorn's compositions (especially the great stuff he wrote with Ellington) but his lifestyle appalled me (in case some people who are not jazz fans don't know, Billy Strayhorn was as gay as a picnic basket).  I think Ozzy Osbourne in all honesty probably had a better chance at heaven than Billy Strayhorn did.  It proves that oftentimes the cover does not say much about the content of the book, something I was trying to educate my parish priest about today.   That was not where I was going with the discussion so I will get back on track.

The problem with the CCM industry since a bunch of greedy corporate types started seeing it as a cash cow in the mid-1970s is the same one with most other contemporary music - it is canned, repetitive, and devoid of originality.  It just wants a good sound to tickle ears and sell, even if the message is so repetitive and annoying that it makes you want to whack your own self in the head with a rolling pin when you hear it more than twice.  CCM and the modern Catholic Church have that in common nowadays - they don't like new voices or original talent, and tend to let great potential rot on the vine rather than cultivating it.  This goes back to what is meant by transcendental properties of being in the philosophical context.  There are three things deemed as transcendental properties of being, and they are truth, beauty and goodness.  God is the complete incarnation of all of them - God is perfect truth, he is perfect beauty, and he is perfect goodness.   A fourth property - love - could also be included, but that is a whole category in itself.  God gave every human person brains, and with those brains an inclination toward these three things which reflects the individuality he gifted each of us.  How we use them is what is integral - do we use them or let them be wasted?   Also, what about when others fail to see them, and tell you that you are not "good enough" to do this, or that, because you didn't include a cover letter with a resume?   The hilarious thing about that is when I have been rejected for things I know I would be called to and excellent at, often the person chosen over me tends to fall miserably short, and whoever gave them that opportunity ends up regretting it.  Likewise, often people are pigeonholed by society and the need to survive to just settle for things they don't belong in, such as a crappy job that suppresses their natural talents, and often they become so burnt-out and discontented they leave on their own free will.  It is always good that you and God know the truth, but you still come up short on your rent.  That is perhaps the most constricting part of the current age we live in - people do not live up to their potential because often they are denied those things which could help them realize it.  This is going to lead to people having a lot to answer for one day, and unlike the quack psychopath Anthony Fauci, they can't plead the fifth to protect themselves.  Any rate, just wanted to share that. 

This is really all I needed to say tonight on these issues, so I will see you next visit. 

What it Means to be "Catholic"

 This is to sort of follow up on the last post, as since then a couple of developments have happened.  For one, I had applied for a position at my parish church that I am more than qualified for, but was curtly dismissed by the associate pastor with a one-sentence response.  I can accept that some things may not be God's will at that particular time, but to just be so curt and dismissive was, well, a bit disconcerting.  So, with that and also a bit of disagreement with the parish priest's letter in the bulletin this past Sunday, I wrote a very heated email to him about all this.  As I was writing it, I began to reflect on the term "Catholic" and what that really means.  The conclusion I came to is something I have held for a while, but perhaps it is time to enunciate it.

The literal meaning of the word "catholic" is simply universal - in that context, it means a church meant for all people regardless of background.  This has made the Church multicultural, and Christianity relates to anyone in any society because of the fact that Christ died for all, and the only thing one has to do is accept that gift from him.  The basis of the catholic dimension of our faith then is John 3:16.  However, it also relates to Romans 12:4-5, as well as I Corinthians 12:12-27.  The universality of the Church incorporates the diversity of its members, and that is why Acts 2 was in essence a reversal of what happened in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel.  Again, I also refer back to the Vincentian Canon regarding what the Catholic faith actually is - that which is held by everyone, at all times and everywhere. The implication then is that one hierarch, bishop, or prelate cannot monopolize the term, or say who is and who isn't Catholic without first weighing the evidence of faith, doctrine, and other things.  Therefore, that being said, I hold to the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church is not the entire Church, and I also hold a view that is more in line with the Christian East regarding the Pope's role - the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and while his position has a level of primacy, it doesn't make him supreme over the rest of the Church.  In looking at how the early Church was structured, no bishop had supreme authority over others, as the idea was collegiality.  All bishops, therefore, possess Apostolic authority, and when one started being elevated over the others for political reasons, that led to problems that we see today.  So, when the bishop sitting inside the Vatican declares that he is supreme over all Christians, he is not exercising his appropriate office.  And, if he happens to not be of good will, is heretical, or just flat-out wrong whether out of ignorance and intention, then he is not to be heeded.  As mentioned yesterday, the one thing that always takes precedence over any bishop - including the Pope - is Magisterial teaching.  Where the Pope lines up with Scripture and Magisterial teaching, he is to be accepted.  Where he does not, he needs to be rejected.  The criteria is quite simple really.  So, when Leo excommunicated the SSPX over what was essentially nothing, he was wrong - he was also inconsistent in that there are far worse people than the SSPX who wear cassocks and vestments, yet they are allowed to run rampant.  This inconsistency needs to be called out for the nonsense it is, and that is what my contention was. 

That being said, I believe that other Christians can be rightly called Catholic who do not have full communion with the Vatican.  I mentioned the Orthodox, but there are also conservative Old Catholics, the SSPX, many sedevacantists, the Continuing Anglicans, the Polish National Catholic Church, the old CAC I have talked about a lot (also called Irvingites) and a group of Lutherans who have Catholic convictions that exist in their own communion as well.  Many of those groups hold probably a more authentic Catholic faith than some who call themselves Roman Catholic, and I recognize that for what it is.  Again, the conclusion is simple - you don't have to be Roman, or in communion with the Vatican, to be Catholic!  Hot take I know, but deal with it. 

Does this mean that Roman Catholics are not Catholic?  No, that is not the point at all.  There are many godly Roman Catholic people, as well as dedicated clergy, who definitely can be called truly Catholic, and they are part of that universal faith.  The point is they are not the only ones - God has a remnant in many places, and that remnant is going to surprise some people one day at who they truly are.  The berobed bureaucrats in the Vatican and in many diocesan chanceries may not be among those, as it has been correctly noted (I think it was a quote attributed to St. Chrysostom, but I think Wesley said it -  I will double-check that) the road to hell is paved with the skulls of apostate bishops.  Looking at it from that perspective, imagine the souls who were damned by self-serving clerics as they crunch the skulls of said clerics under their tortured feet as they are marched to their eternal damnation.  That should be a sobering thought to every Catholic priest and bishop today, because it is a warning regardless of whether the original quote was accurately stated or not.  People are watching, people are listening, and it should give pause for reflection.  Considering the sex scandals in Baltimore alone the past 20 years, and how many churches were shuttered because of those (one down the street here, what used to be St. Michael's, is now a brewery, and a couple of blocks away another parish, St. Ann's, has just closed).  The Archdiocese actually went Chapter 11 over that, and at that point the Archbishop and others should have had a check in their spirit that reminded them that close self-examination was necessary - I don't see that in all honesty.  And, even the current Pope has a blemish on his own legacy for aiding and abetting abusive clerics and not sufficiently addressing their indiscretions.  This series of ongoing scandals indicates that perhaps that Great Schism that many saints and visionaries talked about may be on the cusp of happening.  If it is, I will cast my lots with the side of orthodoxy.  The self-destructive actions of some apostate, heretical, and scandal-ridden clergy will not be tethered to me, sorry.  That is my gauntlet making a loud thud as it hits the ground. 

I am not saying this to be self-righteous at all, as God knows I am the least perfect of any soul.  However I am about consistency, and for good people of faith to be excommunicated and denied being Catholic while wicked people get a carte-blanche to do anything they want, it is a scandal of high proportions and it has to do with the Vatican trying to trademark the name "Catholic" as if it exclusively belonged to them.  Hence, my issue.  I think I will conclude these remarks there, as all that is said from my point of view has been said, and let those to whom it applies chew on it a while.

Aside from that, I wanted to mention that seven books are now published, and below are what they look like:

There are three of these books available on Amazon if you are interested, so feel free to support the sale of my books and do so.  I am hoping to do some more writing at a later time, but we'll wait and see what happens.  Thanks again for visiting, and will see you next time. 

What Constitutes "Catholic?"

 I was not planning on writing again this soon, but today in our parish bulletin the commentary by our parish priest, a Dominican friar and basically a wonderful pastor and spiritual leader, got my attention.  While Fr. Michael really never gives me many issues or incentives to disagree, I politely differ with some of his thoughts on this one.  The discussion has to do with the SSPX, a traditionalist Catholic group who a month ago consecrated I believe four new bishops without Pope Leo's approval, and it led to an excommunication of the SSPX.  This has been an issue I have wanted to sort of let ride out, because in all honesty the waters can be a bit murky to paddle through as there are complexities.  However, in seeing our parish priest's thoughts today, there are a few things I need to say about it now.  This will probably be the one and only time I address this issue, so I am going to try to handle it as thoroughly as possible. 

Let me explain my own position first.  I am a conservative Catholic, and I should explain what I mean by that.  I am not a TLM-exclusivist, as I have nothing against a reverent post-Vatican II liturgy and indeed I attend a parish where it is celebrated reverently and there is nothing that I see as an issue.  I am also NOT anti-Vatican II - I do not think the Vatican II Council was illegitimate, and indeed some wonderful insights have come from the documents produced by it (I particularly love Lumen Gentium, as it is a sound document that echoes historic teaching).  That being said, I also don't have an issue with the TLM being celebrated either - it is a beautiful Mass, and if Catholics feel the conviction to celebrate TLM, then let them - Pope Benedict XVI recognized that as well.  I don't attend one myself regularly - although I have in the past - and I technically prefer the Eastern-rite or Ordinariate Masses, but I have no issues with it either.  This is why Francis's draconian Traditionis Custodius was problematic, as in reality it was Francis creating the problem and not the prelates of the SSPX.  I have a lot more to say about Francis's pontificate later, but for now I want to state my own background to provide some context into what I am about to say. 

As a conservative Catholic, I tend to hold some traditional things, but I am also open to things such as Charismatic Renewal (being a former Pentecostal, that is a part of myself I have preserved), and also more of a role for the laity in the life of the Church.  I also don't really take a position on married clergy either, as in reality I take an Eastern position that if a man is married prior to ordination, that should not hinder him from seeking Holy Orders.  And, as a convert, I don't see other Christian groups as non-Christian just because they are not Catholic - I have stated in my own testimony before that I knew I was Christian long before I was received into the Catholic Church, and I still have many Evangelical and Pentecostal friends I consider my brethren in faith - we know and serve the same Lord, and I don't think not becoming Catholic will be a restriction on their heavenly reward either.   That being said, I tend to be a little broader in my definition of what "Catholic" is too, as I don't think the Vatican has a monopoly on the term.  This too I will elaborate more later.  I am a drummer who marches to a proverbial different cadence, but I am still in lockstep with the same procession regardless.  That has led me to the conclusion that in reality there may be more heretical voices inside the Church that merit excommunication than there are outside, and some of them are in positions of immense authority (one of those is Cardinal Fernandez, who is a moral reprobate who doesn't deserve to call himself a bishop of the Church).  This too I will elaborate more on as well.   I may not even finish this today, so this will take a couple of days to fully write up so I won't be posting it on the same day I started it.  The discussion is too complex and detailed to do in a matter of 30 minutes of writing, in other words. 

Let us start by defining the word "Catholic."  In the broad sense, it means "universal," meaning it is a Church for all peoples and ethnicities, and that mirrors John 3:16 - Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and whoever receives him will receive eternal life.  The Church represents the fullness of that, and that is why the name "Catholic" exists.  So, what then do we mean by the Catholic Faith?  A statement attributed to St. Vincent of Lerins which is one of my favorite quotes summarizes that well:

"(The true Catholic faith is) what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"

This is called the Vincentian Canon, and its purpose was to draw a boundary between orthodox faith and heresy, and included clear definitions on things such as the primacy of Holy Scripture, and the reliability of the Church to help people understand and prevent heresy from cultivating.  Notice, St. Vincent does not say the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic faith.  The Catholic faith transcends any ethnic designation, geography, and jurisdictional limitations, which means by default a couple of things can be true:

1. There are bodies of Christians who may properly be called Catholic but not be subject to, or in communion with, the Vatican.

2.  It also means that although many Protestants may have an incomplete faith, they still have enough of the truth that places them within a level of catholicity, especially the fact they honor and worship Jesus as God the Son and also practice at least two valid sacramental expressions - matrimony and baptism.  So, yes, Protestants are Christians in the sense they embrace a lot of the historic faith, and therefore they participate in the Deposit of Faith on some level.  Only in the acceptance of actual heresies - such as Unitarianism or Oneness Pentecostalism - would they be deemed outside that extended grace. 

3. By conclusion then, this means that were there are true believers outside the official Church, there are also false believers inside it.  Many of those unfortunately are part of the clerical caste too, as they are often bishops and cardinals.  A spiritually vibrant Evangelical Protestant, therefore, would probably have more of a chance of heaven than a corrupt Catholic bishop.  Even Dante recognized that in Inferno. 

Based on those criteria, which are rooted in the Vincentian Canon, is the SSPX truly Catholic then?  Yes they are.  In some cases, the priests of the SSPX may actually be more Catholic in that regard than the last Pope was (yes, in case you didn't catch that, I am not a fan of Francis).  Measuring one's Catholic faith doesn't require blind obedience to a certain Pope, but rather the measure is this - how faithful are they to traditional Magisterial teaching?  On that, some SSPX clergy would score highly, while cardinals like Cupich or Fernandez (not to mention renegade priests like James Martin and Richard Rohr) would fail spectacularly.   It is at this point now I want to take Fr. Michael's commentary and touch on some points in it. 

The first statement in Fr. Michael's commentary that bears examination is this - "To state clearly, as the Church has, the Society of St. Pius X is not in communion with the Catholic Church and we ought not to go to their chapels."  This opening salvo sounds canonical, and in an official capacity probably is, but we have a problem.  Just a couple of months ago, Pope Leo entertained the current Archbishop of Canterbury - who is a woman I might add - at the Vatican and even concelebrated some sort of "prayer service" with this heterodox priestess, who also advocates for LGBT theology.  Since King Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church in the 16th century over a divorce of all things, the Archbishop of Canterbury has not been in communion with the Catholic Church either.  So, if we are going to censure laypeople for attending what is essentially a Catholic Mass at an SSPX chapel, than perhaps the Pope himself should also be censured for doing what he did too - of course, the inclusion of a non-Christian mosque within the walls of the Vatican, or Francis playing with his little Pachamama dolls (pagan idols) should also be noted.  We are supposed to come down hard on the SSPX, but let this other stuff slide??  That is problematic on so many levels.  If I had the choice of attending Mass at a liberal Episcopalian church with a fake lesbian priestess versus an SSPX chapel, I think I would be more Magisterially compliant attending the latter.  But, what do I know - I am just a silly layperson!  I don't fault Fr. Michael for this at all, as I am certain he is probably saying what he's saying in good faith, but I would challenge him to look at some of this other nonsense going one in the name of "Catholic" and then issue a consistent statement on that too.  

I then look at another statement further down in Fr. Michael's commentary - "But Catholicism is also universal in time.  It belongs in every age and must in some way remain engaged with the present."  What he is saying here is based on the Latin meaning of the world "Catholic," which is simply "universal."  There is a lot to unpack in this sentence, so let's take it a little at a time and slowly digest it.  Yes, Catholicism is universal in time - that is the Vincentian Canon's assertion as well, and I totally agree.   However, what is the context of the statement?  If Fr. Michael means universal in regard to historic Magisterial teaching, he is spot-on and I have no argument with that at all.  And, as he notes, it does belong in every age and must in some way remain engaged with the present - absolutely, but what is that context as well?  Church teaching is not negotiable, and is established by both Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition - and, being that natural law and other things also are buttressed by that, it means that things true in the present have been and will be universally true in ages to come.  We can adopt language, technology and other things to be properly engaged with the present, but it can never be at the expense of established eternal truth.  That being said, where is the SSPX in this?  Are they in any way violating that teaching?  If so, specifically where?  I think Fr. Michael may need to clarify that somewhat to simplify what he means, as this can be a loaded gun that any heretical viewpoint can use to justify itself.  Even a slight misunderstanding of it can lead to monumental consequence.  In my estimation, the whole reason for the SSPX's existence was to preserve Magisterial truth, not replace it - yet, what I need to hear from Fr. Michael is why they get excommunicated while individuals like James Martin, and Richard Rohr can flaunt obviously heretical things and are considered untouchable - the same could be said of some cardinals too, and I mean people like Fernandez (who is very perverted) and Cupich (who is outright hostile against more traditional Catholics).  Francis excommunicates Archbishop Vigano, but then promotes a deviant like Fernandez to the second-highest office in the Vatican.  Again, a little consistency here would be nice!   This leads me to reflect on the word "Catholic" more and who or what can rightly be called "Catholic." 

For many people, including many misinformed Catholics, the only right use of this word is with the adjective Roman in front of it.  However, I have to ask - does every Catholic have to be Roman??  I would say no.  For one thing, the Orthodox and Oriental Churches hold Catholic theology, as does groups such as the Polish National Catholic Church, the Continuing Anglicans, and yes, even the SSPX.   All of these are said to be "in schism" with the Vatican, but in many cases people in those churches have a more solid Catholic faith than a lot of individuals who identify as "Roman Catholic." I was probably as Catholic when I was a Continuing Anglican as I am now in communion with Rome, but would that be acknowledged?  I believe it should.  I was more Catholic then, I would assert, than some people who were "born Catholic" ever were - I reference the former CFO of the school I taught at, who denied basic Eucharistic theology but called himself Catholic.  Yet, the SSPX are the ones being punished.  Again, I have a huge pet peeve with inconsistency, and it seems like conservatives and traditionalists are getting whaled on while leftists and actual heretics get a free pass - maybe that is what is meant by "engaging with the present."  With 60% of professing Catholics having issues with the Church's teachings right now, and younger people being attracted to more traditional Masses, why is Leo picking on the SSPX??  That is some food for thought I hope Fr. Michael may consider.  I am going to address the inconsistency of this in Fr. Michael's writing shortly, but wanted to give this as a pretext. 

Further down toward the end of the writing, Fr. Michael then makes this statement I wanted to address: "This does not mean that elements of the Second Vatican Council, or of its implementation, do not need to be better understood and worked through.  But to draw a line and claim that the Church no longer lives and moves within time strikes at the heart of what it means to be Catholic."  Again, there is a lot to unpack here, so let's just dive into it.  I said before that personally I have no problem with recognizing the good things of Vatican II, and indeed, some reform was necessary as long as it is consistent with the historic Magisterium of the Church.  However, I would clarify the statement by stating that the question that some traditionalists have about Vatican II is not so much about its elements (although some may say so) but indeed is more about their implementation afterward.  A lot of bad theology and practices have resulted from the misappropriation of things in the Vatican II documents, misappropriations I don't believe some of their original drafters intended.  That misappropriation is not even so much from the Council Fathers, but rather of a group of "advisors" called periti that exerted some undue influence - I am talking about openly questionable individuals such as Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx and others who cloaked their heterodox positions in ambiguous language so as to almost invite misappropriation, and they had their roots in the earlier heresies of people such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.  It is from the ambiguities of these periti that most of the muddled water of ideology in the Church came from, and it is precisely that garbage that Archbishop Lefevre, the founder of the SSPX,  had concerns about.  Engaging the present was never an issue - that is a natural process - but radically redefining truths held since Apostolic times definitely is a problem.  So, I think there are a couple of other aspects of this I need to address because they tie into how this stuff spreads among Catholics at times.

There seems to be this misunderstanding that the Pope is somehow infallible even when he farts on the toilet for some reason, and that simply is not the case.  The Pope is a human being, prone to sinful things like any of us, and thus there is nothing divine about him.  For Catholics to try to give the Pope more authority than the Church ever did, I say this - you are setting the Pope up to be more like a Warren Jeffs, a Jim Jones, or a Sun Myung Moon than you are as the actual representative of Christ's Church, and you are basically putting a big bulls-eye on your back for any Protestant Fundamentalist evangelist to try to force-feed you Chick comics about that.  The late Bishop Fulton Sheen once accurately said that most people hate what they see as the Catholic Church rather than what really is the Catholic Church, and when we start to endow the Papacy with powers it never was intended to have, we create an impression that is false.  Even though the proper title of the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the fact these are mortal men has led to a lot of bad Popes over the centuries, and Popes who have made dumb - albeit human - mistakes and have failed in their mission.  The last Pope, Francis, is a glaring example of that - he stunk as a Pope in all honesty, and some of what Leo is doing now merits scrutiny. It doesn't take away from the office, and definitely does not supplant Magisterial truth, but it still does damage when others see it.  The Pope is not Christ - he is a fallible man, and like all of us, he will sin.  He holds his office with a lot of responsibility, and if he fails to carry that out, he fails as a spiritual leader.  In matters of faith and doctrine, the Pope is subject to a higher standard - the Deposit of Faith.  If a Pope is in agreement with the Deposit of Faith, we accept it.  If he is not, we can throw it out.  On this one, the Pope erred, I am sorry - he was inconsistent in punishing the SSPX but letting people like Fernandez, Richard Rohr, and James Martin prance around without consequences too.  He is also inconsistent in punishing these SSPX faithful and denying them the title Catholic while he covorts with faux female "archbishops" of the Church of England, which is not in communion with the Holy See either.  If the Pope is doing junk like that, do we blindly accept that?  NO!!  The Pope needs to accept responsibility for his actions too, as he may actually be declaring himself schismatic by doing them, and don't get me started on Cardinal Tucho Fernandez - that character should have been defrocked and excommunicated decades ago when he published his first soft-core porn book.  And then there is James Martin, prancing around like a prissy pony at "pride parades" who gets rewarded with papal audiences, while the SSPX leadership is snubbed.  Consistency is needed, and I would like to see Fr. Michael address those inconsistencies as well instead of just focusing on the SSPX.

In the concluding paragraphs, Fr. Michael goes on to essentially equate the SSPX with Luther, and he calls them "Protestantism with a lot of Latin."  Yet, the Pope himself fellowships with actual Protestants like the faux Archpriestess of Canterbury.  I would not call the SSPX "Protestant," because they don't hold to Protestant teachings theologically - their doctrine is thoroughly Catholic, perhaps more so than some who profess to be Catholic, and that label was not fair.  While I don't agree totally with some in the SSPX, and I think perhaps a little more dialogue should have happened before excommunications were thrown at them (maybe Leo could have actually met with them?  Now, there is a radical thought!), but at the same time I don't denounce them as "Protestant."  It is, after all, very possible to be Catholic without being in communion with the Vatican - the Orthodox have done that for over 1000 years, and then you also have other groups (sedevacantist groups, the Polish National Church, the Old Catholics, Continuing Anglicans, the Oriental Churches, and others) who also embrace the Deposit of Faith perhaps even more fully than do many Roman Catholics.  So, if being in communion with the Holy See is a definition of "Catholic," I guess that means the fictional Fr. Guido Sarducci from the old SNL skits can celebrate Eucharist then, no?  Again, we need to be more judicious with terms like "Protestant," as a whole theology goes with Protestantism and the SSPX does not subscribe to that particular theology.  I embrace a more Vincentian view of what it means to be Catholic, and that at times does transcend the walls of the Vatican. 

A lot more could have been said on this, and it is not a subject I wanted to address but had to.  Thank you for enduring this lengthy discourse with me, and will see you next time.