Pentecost - Rebirth of the Believer, Birthday of the Church

 Yesterday, we observed Pentecost Sunday, which is a feast day and a solemnity in the Catholic Church.  It is also the one holiday that is shared with the Jewish faith too, as it evolved from them.  A lot of things came together with this in 2026, and I wanted to focus on those today. 

The story of Pentecost is in Acts 2, when it talks about a group of new Christians gathering in an upper room in Jerusalem some days after Christ ascended back to heaven.  While meeting together, something happened - it is described in the passage as "a mighty rushing wind" and a supernatural manifestation of "tongues of fire" appeared on the heads of those who were there and some other supernatural things began to happen - some spoke in languages they did not know, and some also prophesied things.  The meeting ended up topping out, according to the account, at 3000 souls.  This is the day that marks the official birthday of the Christian Church, and why it is integral to the liturgical cycle.  But, I wanted to just unpack a few things about it today because it is important to understand its significance.

In the past century or so, a whole Protestant tradition took this name upon themselves - Pentecostals - based on the passage in Acts 2, which is often seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28, the famous "latter rain" passage.  I grew up in that tradition, was a minister in it for several years, and received my undergraduate degree at one of their biggest universities in Florida.  So, what does that mean, being "Pentecostal?"  Let's talk about that a bit.

The one major thing Pentecostals are noted for is glossolalia, or speaking in tongues.  Often, as modern denominations in that Christian tradition understand it, these are "unknown tongues" that to an outsider sound like gibberish - the late Baptist evangelist Jerry Falwell said it was reminiscent of people who ate too much pizza for dinner the night before.  Tongues are understood by most Pentecostals - and I used to hold the same view - as being a "prayer language" that you speak "in the Spirit" to God himself, but is it though?  Oddly, not every Pentecostal group agrees with that interpretation, as one of the oldest denominations of that tradition, the Apostolic Faith Mission out of Portland Oregon (organized around 1907 if memory serves me correctly), teaches that tongues must be in a known language that is unknown to the speaker, and thus they would maintain that speaking in tongues is indeed an "unknown language" but not so to the recipient.  Other more old-time Pentecostals hold similar views about that, as do movements which presaged the Pentecostal movement such as the Catholic Apostolic Church ("Irvingite") movement of the 1830s as well as some earlier Wesleyan-Holiness denominations. If that is the case, it means that tongues would then be for one of two purposes - evangelization and edification - and the supernatural dimension would be God trying to reach a specific person who maybe speaks that language.  There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" as well which is noted in Scripture and also upheld by many Pentecostal groups, and I wanted to talk about that somewhat before tackling a cardinal Pentecostal conviction regarding tongues - the "initial evidence" doctrine. 

The gift of interpretation of tongues has been seen by many Pentecostal and Charismatic people as overlapping with the gift of prophecy, meaning that an utterance in tongues would actually be prophetic rather than evangelistic or edifying in that context.  However, when one reads the account in Acts, nothing is said about tongues being a prophetic utterance - on the contrary, the prophetic gift is seen as distinct.  This led to some confusion during my early years as a Pentecostal myself, because I always asked the question then as to what the difference between tongues and prophetic words was, and I am sure many other Pentecostals struggle with that distinction today.  Often, that concern and/or question was dismissed as being "too logical" or simplistically being told to "search the Scriptures," but that second answer was the problem - many did search the Scriptures, and nothing still showed up linking tongues and prophecy together.  Then, as I studied history more, it seems there is a bit of a disconnect as to how the earliest Pentecostals viewed this as compared with their modern descendants, and the older view makes more sense and also seems to be a position shared by many visionaries and saints over the centuries.  The early Pentecostal movement was quite diverse - it was made up of people from a lot of different backgrounds, and many also had English skills that were not refined.  So, any supernatural manifestation of tongues was directed at them in many cases, and it was they who had the "gift of interpretation" because they understood the language being spoken to them.  Looking at it that way, it does not detract from the supernatural dimension, as tongues still is a spiritual gift, but it does clarify many misunderstandings about how the gift is used.  Now that we understand that, let's tackle what "initial physical evidence" is.

Almost every Pentecostal denomination has a statement about how the baptism of the Holy Spirit is received, and in varying language, the bottom line is this - the initial, physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (or second blessing, to use a term borrowed from the Wesleyan-Holiness roots of Pentecostalism) is speaking in unknown tongues, or glossolalia.  Most Pentecostals buttress this with two passages from Scripture, the first being in Acts 2, which talks about how the people on the day of Pentecost received this sign after they got the Holy Spirit in the upper room.  The second is from Mark 16 (the same passage used by the serpent-handling subset of Pentecostalism to affirm their unique beliefs too) where it talks about "these signs shall follow those who believe," and the first sign noted in that passage is "they shall speak with new tongues."  The "initial evidence" doctrine of legacy Pentecostals (as opposed to Charismatics, who would not subscribe to a dogmatic interpretation of this) comes from those two passages primarily, and often the terms "new tongues" and "unknown tongues" are used interchangeably.  While I don't doubt the validity of the sign itself, I too have abandoned the doctrine of "initial evidence" even back when I was still a Pentecostal myself because I have known too many non-Pentecostal Christians who seem to have a strong presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and many of them have never spoken in unknown tongues.  Also, the risk of unregulated practices like this may lead to fake manifestations or Pavlovian responses to altar call pleas, and if that is truly the case, then it is not a spiritual gift at all but merely a performance.  Also, Pentecostalism is not the only religion that has the practice of glossolalia, as some other groups such as Hindus and some animistic and occultic sects like Voodoo do this too, and experienced exorcists have noted that one manifestation of demonic possession is speaking in a babbling, incoherent gibberish that sounds eerily close to the tongues one hears at some Pentecostal and Charismatic meetings.  So, does that mean all tongues-speakers are demonic?  Not at all - it just says that perhaps we need to re-examine "initial evidence" and also understand discernment better, as that is also listed as a gift of the Holy Spirit too.  That is why, over the years, I have come to understand tongues as a known language unknown to the speaker, who is for some reason supernaturally endowed to give a message of evangelization or encouragement to a recipient it is meant for.  This would also be in line with how many of the earliest Pentecostals would have understood this gift as well. 

Moving from Pentecostalism back to the feast of Pentecost as understood by the Church, it is also important to understand that another aspect of Acts 2 understood by the Church is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit talked about in Acts has traditionally been understood as the basis for the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Church.  If you will note, most Confirmations (especially of children and teens) happen on Pentecost Sunday, and there is a reason for that.  The Sacrament of Baptism is a symbol of rebirth - the person is adopted into Christ and made new.  Pentecost is the next step, for then the new Christian is received officially into the Church via Confirmation, and as it is understood, they are then able to participate fully in the life of the Church now with what God gave them - this can be through supernatural spiritual gifts or through the clarification of natural talents the person already had.  The message of Confirmation then is that the new Christian is now part of the Body of Christ, and based on who God created this person to be, they now can find where they fit into it - this is Romans 12: 4-5.  Some gifts again are given supernaturally, or the revelation may be that God is speaking to the person to use what he gave them when they were created, and at times they can't discover that themselves - this is where things such as tongues, prophecy, and words of knowledge or wisdom come into the picture.  A true Convergence Christianity will understand this fully, and that is what they will desire as well.  The Holy Spirit being in them awakens things, and the closer they grow to God in supernatural grace, the greater the urge to utilize that which they already have.  That is the true miracle of Pentecost, not the signs themselves.  Understanding it this way makes a Church of Pentecost thus truly Pentecostal in the Biblical sense.  

I wanted to give this short lesson today for people who may be confused when they watch televangelists who profess Pentecostalism slap people upside the head and expect to hear incoherent "babblings" that are blamed on the Holy Spirit but may not be.  It doesn't mean God is limited, for he certainly can move on people the way he wants, but it does mean that we need to curb the desire for the sensational and instead seek the truth.  If we seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit (and there are many of those we receive regularly) God will honor that if we are truthful with ourselves in desiring it and we seek it properly.  But, if we just do things by either emotional highs or Pavlovian responses, then it may not be God working in us - it may be just a knee-jerk response to a hyper-energized atmosphere and could lead to disappointments when things don't go according to what some TV preacher says.  Thank you for allowing me to share, and I will see you next time. 

Revisiting Convergence

 In my last discussion, I was talking about how I am starting to take another look at the Convergence Movement I was part of just prior to becoming Catholic.  That was, in the fundamental sense, my catalyst for coming into the Catholic Church.  However, I had the draw of liturgy and sacramental faith long before that, as it was evident even when I was very young.  I have told the story of that many times, so no real need to rehash that except to say that one initial spark happened only a mile or two away from where I am sitting now in Baltimore.  The purpose of this discussion is to explain what Convergence is, and in doing so I will also determine my own standing as a Convergence Christian - can I still be identified as such, or have I evolved beyond it in my faith journey?  That actually may be a question that sparks a second discussion, but for now here is where we are at. 

What emerged as the Convergence Movement actually dates back to a meeting in 1977 in Chicago when a number of Evangelicals and Pentecostals started to explore what they understood the early Church to be.  Many of them were involved in some other Charismatic trends of the time, such as the now-discredited Discipleship/Shepherding movement, and it was the excesses and deficiencies of movements like that which led to many of these individuals seeking to grow in their own faith journeys too.  A document, called the "Chicago Call," was produced from those meetings and it essentially became the manifesto of the Convergence Movement when it formally emerged on the scene later in the early 1990s.  I have talked about this document before, and it had much to do with how many of us did discover the ancient Church, including its liturgical forms.  That being said, the movement has undergone much sorting, and there are segments of it that are still trying to figure out the details of what all this means.  This leads to a couple of issues I have noted that I will get into momentarily, but I think to do that it is integral to the discussion to understand the underlying impetus of the Convergence focus, and that would be the "Three Streams."  Let me explain what those are.

The "Three Streams" represent in Convergence thought three expressions of Christianity that have existed side by side for generations, but often seem to be opposed to each other.  However, for those rediscovering their own faith through Convergence, these three streams are really not in contradiction, but rather compliment each other as they represent for the Convergence Christian three important aspects of faith that branched off an original "river."  That "river" for the Convergence Christian is the New Testament Church.  The "Three Streams" are defined as follows:

1. Evangelical - this stream represents the importance of the inerrancy of Scripture - often from a more literal interpretation - as well as the emphasis on the evangelization aspect of the Church. 

2. Liturgical - this stream represents the historic Church, rooted in Tradition with a form of worship that dates from Apostolic times with even Hebraic accents.  The liturgy, Sacraments, and also a faith that is lived rather than just articulated is integral.   

3. Charismatic - this emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the supernatural dimension of faith, and a vibrant faith that is lived as well as professed.  

If one were to take a Trinitarian approach to this, the Evangelical represents the Son, the Liturgical represents the Father, and of course the Charismatic represents the Holy Spirit.  And like the Trinity is one God in three distinct persons, so the Church is one Church with three distinct streams through which each member of the Triune Godhead manifests different attributes.  That, in a nutshell, is what Convergence is truly about.

However, over the course of the growth of the Convergence Movement, there have been some proverbial scraped knees as trying to integrate these three streams is a matter of experimentation and it has created some inconsistencies.  The most over-emphasized aspect is probably the Charismatic stream, in that you have traditional liturgy and contemporary "praise music" being hashed together in what is in essence an ecclesiastical mess.  Having a Charismatic/Pentecostal dimension to one's spirituality does not mean you have to ape everything the typical Charismatic/Pentecostal group does with window-dressing of liturgy, and I have come to understand it may mean something completely different to be integrated.  The historic liturgies of the Church are sufficient enough in their richness to be left alone, and they don't need to be "Pentecostalized" to be relevant to the Convergence experience. Charismatic expressions of faith, such as moving in the gifts (in particular healing) can easily be part of a liturgical form with no problem, but many Convergence leaders have to get beyond the thinking that they are essentially vested Pentecostals.  Also, informal meetings and events outside the sacramental/liturgical context are not out of the question either - there is no problem whatsoever with things such as prayer groups, and I would even advocate for revivals and crusades as well.  Also, while the ordained ministry in the Church is sacramental - meaning it is solely male and made up of three fundamental orders (bishop, priest, deacon), this does not negate the importance of lay ministry, and a more formalized lay ministry can be implemented as well that is outside the liturgical framework - lay evangelists, for instance, can be both men and women who are called to evangelization, and the historic Church does not say women can preach - it just says they can't be ordained to Holy Orders is all.  A young Pentecostal Holiness guy in Georgia named Tim told me something years ago that emphasizes that women can indeed proclaim the Gospel, and it was this - the first preacher of the Gospel was Our Lady, and she did so by giving the Word in flesh to the world as God's chosen vessel.  This is one reason why over the years I have appreciated people such as Kathryn Kuhlman, and in my own faith journey it was often women preachers in the Pentecostal tradition that had the greatest impact on me personally - I look back to people like Sister Ann Mayfield in Brunswick, GA, in whose little Pentecostal Holiness congregation I received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and first spoke in tongues myself.  I note people like Rev. Shirley James, who prophesied a healing over me in a Foursquare church years ago.  And, I remember the elderly lady Pentecostal minister who led a small church in my hometown years ago, Sister Lily Carr Plaugher.  All of these ladies, as well as higher-profile female preachers like Kathryn Kuhlman, had an impact on my spiritual growth.  And, although all of them have passed on now, they still hold a special place in my own story of faith too.  Now, with two of the aforementioned - Sisters Mayfield and Plaugher - they were pastors of churches, which I would not agree with now, but they were also godly ladies who had a gift of preaching.  Women therefore can preach and proclaim the Gospel anywhere, and I have no problem with creating a class of lay evangelists in the Church who could do just that. Some of the most prominent religious orders were also founded as well with the charism of preaching and proclamation, specifically the Dominican Friars, and many of their number were lay brothers.  This again has its basis in Scriptures such as Romans 12:4-5 and I Corinthians 12, which talk about the importance of all members of the body - not every member has the same gifts, talents, or abilities, but each is important.  And, in the Convergence model, this is where the Charismatic aspect in particular would shine the brightest.  The challenge though would be coming up with a clear model to embody it, and that I believe is part of the growth pains of what it means to be part of the Convergence Movement.

The aspect of the Evangelical stream of Convergence I think is integral within the context of the Liturgy would be a high view of Scripture.  I have mentioned the Fourfold Hermeneutic of Scripture many times before (Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical - the acronym LAMA), and one thing about that is that Scripture is ultimately God's book and passages of it can be all four of those at once.  The importance of context is also integral to that, as Scripture is completely true and is of divine authorship, so I would hold a very strong view of Scriptural inerrancy.  This means that God as Creator did exactly as Genesis documents, and a big problem with the Liturgical stream in recent decades in particular is that a number of liberal elements (particularly liberal Episcopalians and Lutherans, but also liberal Catholic orders such as the Jesuits) have been stuck on this 19th-century fallacy that Scripture needs to be somehow "demythologized."  The short answer to this is no, it does not - Scripture is NOT myth, and to claim otherwise is to deny some essential aspects of Christian faith.  In a true Convergence parish, Scriptural inerrancy (including a literal Creation narrative) is paramount, as you can't understand the liturgy or anything else without it.  Some have tried unfortunately - one example is the campus minister here at the school where I teach, who is into all this "liberation theology" garbage and he politicizes even sacramental elements of faith to a degree they lose their true meaning in his interpretation.  This is not what Convergence would endorse, because it detracts from the historic faith element that birthed the movement to begin with.  This is why in recent years I have grown a bit concerned with some Convergence leaders who court liberal theologians like Leonard Sweet and Stanley Hauerwas, and the result is a blurred line between actual Convergence and the "Emerging Church" movement of heretical Evangelicals like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.  These two movements are not the same, and there should be no intermingling of them.  I also have concerns about some leaders who are influenced by renegade Catholic writers such as Richard McBrien, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton - those individuals and their writings should be anathema to anyone who wants to embrace a true Convergence model of the Church.  These are some growing pains of that movement, and they must be addressed and dealt with properly to avoid stagnation. 

So, this is my official revisitation of what the Convergence Movement is to me, as I am starting to revisit a lot of things lately as I decide what the next move is in my own spiritual growth.  I am as of late a bit concerned about the current state of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am part, as I see disturbing trends with the last Pope as well as the current Pontiff, and I also see spiritual rot in people like this campus minister at my school - he is a true abomination in all honesty.  A lot will be determined by the course of action I see the Church take, and it will also determine if I stay in the Roman Catholic Church as a communicant or I decide to pursue a more orthodox Catholic path elsewhere.  Thanks for joining me, and will see you next time. 

Reaching the Green Light and Waiting

 In recent weeks, I have been on the cusp of change - my position at my current school where I teach is  about to end, and I am waiting to hear about other opportunities.  A part of the new opportunity is also a potential move soon, and I am anticipating it.  However, the wait is what is the hard part, and let me use an illustration to explain it.

About 2 blocks from my current house is 25th Street.  When I am going to work of a morning, that entails turning onto 25th at Greenmount Avenue, at the corner of which is a Dollar General and a tiny breakfast restaurant that some passengers on the bus I used to take said had some of the best coffee in the city.  If you travel about a quarter mile east on 25th Street, you come to the intersection of Harford Road.  At that intersection is an annoyingly long traffic light that blinks green and then stays on red it seems forever.  When the road was tore up a few months back for the endless and aggravating road construction Baltimore is noted for, that made things even more a situation of hubris as I am sure myself and countless others who take that route every day were forced to be late to work or school.  I have seen annoying traffic lights many times and in many places - St. Petersburg, FL, was noted for a lot of them too.  Thinking about the hubris and impatience a lengthy traffic light causes made me think of what my own life is like right now - I feel like I am sitting for a longer-than-usual time at that Harford Road intersection, waiting for that light to change from red to green.  You know the destination is in front of you, you are en route to it, but there is a delay that seems to be eternal.  This is my life at this point, and in all honesty, that light can change anytime!  Of course, there are other factors I have to wait out as well, such as waiting on this contract to end, for an actual opportunity to call, and then comes house hunting.  This means that if I start a new position in August, I will need to prepare by packing up my stuff, finding a house, and then moving into it before my first day of work comes.  It is daunting, but all of it is contingent on one email or phone call presenting me an offer for that opportunity.  I am actually praying that happens soon, and it is a lesson in trusting God for the light to change in a timely manner.  Again, this is where I am now.

Other decisions weigh on me too, such as my spiritual life.  I have, for a number of years, felt a bit displaced by my decision to return to the Catholic Church - I can't minister anymore because I have to be celibate to be a priest, which is not in my agenda.  Also, I have felt like teaching is my vocation - and it is - but too many things restrain me from teaching the way I would love to teach. One thing in particular is this school where I teach at now.  Despite having a Catholic identity, the school itself is very left-leaning on so many things, and the school fails to live up to its own name, which is a Latin title that exalts the Kingship of Christ.  Additionally, seeing some other things going on in the greater Catholic world concerns me too.  That pervert cardinal, "Tucho" Fernandez, is a problem in that he is the one in charge of the Dicastery of Faith, yet he has essentially written soft-core porn in theological language, which in itself is disturbing.  Add to that the Pachamama scandal (which the new Pope seems to be endorsing), priest scandals in the past 20 or so years, a re-emergence of the heresy of liberation theology in the name of "immigrant ministry," and the punishment of many solid and orthodox clergy (the SSPX, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Strickland, Archbishop Vigano, Cardinal Zen, and Fr. Frank Pavone among others) while affirming openly heretical and diabolical people such as Cardinal Fernandez and James Martin, has led me to reassess once again my relationship to the Catholic Church as an institution.  It is this I want to unpack now, as there is a lot I have been processing in regard to all this recently. 

The first thing I want to state is that I am a very committed Catholic Christian - I believe in a 2000-year-old faith without compromise and everything that goes with that.  I am not someone though who is strictly Tridentine Mass, as the so called Novus Ordo Mass that most Catholic parishes celebrate is actually quite reverent if it is celebrated in the right way.  I am at the point in my life that this aspect of my faith will never change as I have held it for the better of 30 years now.  That being said however, the official Roman Catholic Church as represented by the Vatican is often not as truly Catholic as it claims to be - there are too many Sadducees in clerical garb who will do anything to compromise Catholic truth as it has been held for centuries, and I am convinced that both the current Pope, Leo XIV and his predecessor Francis, have both did much to undermine true Catholicity in faith, and that is concerning to me.  I am not sure where I am right now with the official Catholic Church as administered by the leadership in the Vatican, but I am not making any decisions to go any direction yet until I see what truly happens - it would take a "green light" of a different sort to motivate me to leave that expression of Catholicism for good.  However, if the Church continues on its current trajectory and people like Cardinal Tucho have the power they have, it will not be me leaving the Catholic faith at all - it will be them if they compromise on it.  I have been meditating on that possibility and am looking into a communion that would be the Catholic faith I myself have, and it's good to have an exit strategy in case things really deteriorate later.  I am not inclined toward the SSPX, as I am not exclusively Tridentine Mass, nor am I totally comfortable with being formally part of an Orthodox church of some sort either - as much as I love and revere the Christian East, there are some of their hierarchs that focus more on exclusivity and legalism than they do the beauty of their own traditions, and I don't want that either.  Going back to the Continuing Anglican movement has been a thought, but I will have to see what comes of that first.  And the Polish National Catholic Church - I have looked into that also, and I like what I see but am just not "feeling" that right now though.  If I would be part of a particular Communion of some sort, it would have to almost mirror my own faith journey to a degree, and would have to be something I would be 100% certain of being part of.  That has led me to revisit a few things I want to talk about now.

I mentioned that my road to becoming Catholic was a path with a lot of turns in it - I was a former Pentecostal, and I became attracted to liturgy and sacramental understandings of the Christian experience some time ago.  I along with thousands of others were part of what was called the Convergence Movement, and at a later point I want to do an article here specifically on that.  The idea of "convergence" meant that over the centuries there were three streams of Christian expression - the Evangelical, the Charismatic, and the Liturgical (or Catholic).  With the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, something happened that isolated all of these from each other, and the result was a mess of incomplete Christian traditions emphasizing one of these over the others.  You had groups like the Baptists for instance that had a high view of Scripture and personal conversion to Christ, but they lacked something in the process.  The Pentecostals rediscovered the importance of the supernatural and the work of the Holy Spirit, but they too lacked - often, their belief systems would devolve into personality cults built up around pastors and evangelists, and you had to "feel" everything in order to be "spiritually alive."  That constant high standard caused problems of a different sort.  The Liturgical stream though had the worship - it was an ancient worship connected deeply to tradition, but at times many people who participated in it just "went through the motions," and thus they had something they knew was real but never fully appreciated it.  The three streams then became three competing faiths in a matter of speaking, with each trying to discredit the other without realizing that they actually were all supposed to compliment each other - that is where Convergence Christianity came into the picture, as many of us who were early proponents of it understood that there was something missing and the pieces needed to be put together in order to get a complete picture of what true Christian faith was.  While this has been an evolutionary process (not in a Darwinian sense, but rather a growth through trial-and-error), it also has congealed into a form of Catholic Christianity that I can securely lay claim to as it follows my basic convictions.  If I were to explain this, it would be like this:

1. Evangelical - this means my faith has a high view of Scripture as God-authored Revelation, and that what it says is true, especially regarding origins - this is why I also embrace both Biblical Young-Earth Creationism as a theological position and Intelligent Design as a scientific position.  It also sees the importance of Biblical morality, personal faith, and the salvation of souls as a mission of the Church.

2. Charismatic - this means my faith is supernatural in focus.  I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit working even today in ways such as healing, exercise of spiritual gifts, and the overlooked importance of important things such as our dreams. 

3. Liturgical - this is my worship.  It is grounded, rich in symbolism, and also rooted in a tradition.  The order, reverence, and dignity of liturgy brings the invisible to life, and it also is a way to live out the Gospel.  Jesus then is made real through sacramental grace.  

There are a couple of things about this which must be clarified - being a charismatic and a traditionalist does not to entail two conflicting and exclusive concepts.  It does not mean that CCM and "blended worship" have to be substituted for the rich musical tradition of the liturgical form either.  Some Convergence proponents try to insert contemporary "praise choruses" into a liturgical setting, but it doesn't fit because there is a time and place for the "praise time," and it is not during the Mass.  This is why I am not opposed to bringing things such as revivals and crusades into a Convergent Church environment, but for that I don't look to Hillsong, but rather to older forms of crusades such as those of the late Kathryn Kuhlman.  There is a reason Kathryn appealed to so many charismatic Catholics, and that is because she saw herself as being a vessel of the Holy Spirit and not doing anything that would offend him.  So, despite her identity with the Pentecostal movement, Kathryn Kuhlman's form of extra-liturgical evangelism meetings would fit comfortably into a Convergent Catholic setting.  The Mass and other liturgical forms should be kept with Christ at the center, but there are other forms of meetings that can be incorporated that encourage the supernatural move of the Holy Spirit too.  I would differ to a degree with other Convergence Movement people on this, but I think the evolution of the Church the way we are desiring it would be integral to understanding the times and places for different forms of devotion.  Remember too, the earliest movement that was considered a forerunner of the Azuza Street meetings that sparked Pentecostalism was a liturgical movement itself - the Catholic Apostolic Church of the 1830s.  The modern Convergence Movement would benefit a lot from studying the old CAC and its writings and liturgical heritage, as in reality the CAC was actually the original Convergence Church.  Even some of the oldest Pentecostal groups - the Portland-based Apostolic Faith Church comes to mind - reflected a reverence that many modern Pentecostals and Charismatics lack.  The AFC still has ordered services with full orchestras and pipe organs, and it is fully Pentecostal as well.  Same with another movement that presaged the Convergence Movement by a decade called the International Communion of Charismatic Churches.  While one ICCC pioneer, Bishop Earl Paulk, lost his credibility over scandal, he and many of his colleagues created a new type of "high-church Pentecostalism" which surprisingly also attracted many African-Americans too.  The biggest church in the US of this movement, Evangel Cathedral in Upper Marlboro, MD (which is about 30 miles from where I am sitting now) was founded by Bishop John Meares and still today continues that legacy as well.  In the many years of observing all this, I have always had a unique version of the Church that saw the benefits of all the aforementioned, and I often tried to implement it with little success and much opposition when I was a Pentecostal, and somewhat tabled when I eventually became Catholic.  But, lately those feelings have been stirring again and I am starting to wonder if I missed something somewhere?  Let me recap a little summary of my personal journey to show you what I mean.

A lot of this is hard to articulate in words, because I have never fully sorted out a lot of it myself.  There are times I was more attuned to it and wanted to explore things with it, but then the demands of daily life sort of made me table it as I have so many things.  I think one of the reasons I am so spiritually discontented lately is due to the fact that there is a lot I feel is missing from my own religious life, and I am starting to look back into some things to recover some of that enthusiasm I used to have.  This means the distinct possibility of maybe looking into a smaller - but fully Catholic - group that I can develop in and really be that person I should be.  I miss a lot of that stuff, and it does weigh on me.  This particular red light has been a long red light, and I need a way to make that light green so I can start to fulfill what it is I should be.  Hopefully as I explore this more I can get there, but the major thing now is discernment - where do I go, and what do I do?  A lot of that is waiting to see what directions Leo takes the Catholic Church - a lot will be determined then as to where I live out my Catholic faith, and the remote possibility is that the official Roman Catholic Church may not be the place.  I will be prayerfully exploring that further in days to come I am sure. 

Thank you for allowing me to share.   Many of you will relate to this green light analogy, as many of you are there.  The key is the wait - if you can survive that, it will make it all worth it in the end.  See you next time. 

Revisiting Transhumanism

 I recently came across Grayson Quay's book on transhumanism written from an orthodox Catholic perspective, and to be honest it was refreshing to see one from a Catholic source this time.  The huge misconception that exists is that Catholics are somehow friendly toward transhumanism based on some flawed and deeply heretical writings of Teilhard de Chardin, who was one of its earliest proponents.  In reality though, Teilhard de Chardin never represented the traditional Catholic view on this topic because he was in essence heretical and possibly demonically influenced - John Wynne notes that experience in his book exposing the Teilhardian/Cartesian heresy and it is a bit unsettling.  Monday in the mail I also received a copy of Francis Fukuyama's book Our Posthuman Future (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2002) that I replaced since my original copy was lost a couple of years ago.  This copy is a hardcover edition, which is a bonus, and also is a newer edition of the original as well - Fukuyama is a political economist who also is well-versed in technological science, and he has been one of the voices most critical of AI technologies as well as the dangers of transhumanism.  So, to revisit this, what is transhumanism?  Let's give a basic definition.

Transhumanism is considered to be an upgrade of the old eugenics movement, but it seeks to speed up human evolution by incorporating GRIN technologies (genetic engineering, robotics, AI, and nanotechnology) with biological components to in essence create the Nietzschean Ubermensch.  This presents some ethical challenges, including what defines a person, and fundamentally challenges even what it is to be human.  For the Catholic, the issue is dignity of personhood - can a Catholic in good conscience support alterations to the creation of the human person without diminishing personhood itself?  This fundamental issue is what also makes people like Teilhard de Chardin problematic, and why also it calls into question Darwinian evolution, which is often used as the basis for transhumanist ideology.  It also begs a very serious question as well - if the Nazis would have had access to transhumanist technological means, what consequences would that have had?  There are neo-Nazis today who embrace this stuff, and thankfully they are a fringe group with no real leverage.  However, this interest is not just limited to radical fringes - there are billionaires with money to blow who are messing with the theory as well.  The influence of the elites, who believe themselves to be "superior" to the masses, would encourage something like transhumanism as they could utilize it as a key to fulfilling their own utopian fantasies - genetically engineering others to serve them.  Getting rid of that pesky idea of "human dignity" would be their first major goal, and once that distinction is jettisoned, then the sky would be the limit as to what they could potentially do.  This was also the same ideas that drove Sir Francis Galton's early eugenics ideology.  Selective breeding, synthetic robotic/biotic components, etc., would be the stuff of their utopian fantasies and most others' dystopian nightmares.  Therein is the basic issue then. 

For an orthodox Catholic, transhumanism is something that should not be embraced, and its foundational ideologies - including theistic evolution - should likewise be rejected as well.  The Catholic - and Biblical - belief for human origins is that man was created uniquely in God's image.  Being created in God's image does not mean we are clones of the Almighty - rather, it means he envisioned us as we should be and by his supernatural will he brought humanity into existence.  Because of that, human dignity is fundamental to the Gospel in that it means we all come from the same place, from the same two people whom God created, and that we have the dignity as a full person, not a mere part or a mere means to an end.  Transhumanism diminishes that by reducing the person to a commodity, and thus it violates the basic dignity of personhood by encouraging the subjugation of elitists over everyone else.  Therefore, as Catholics we should oppose transhumanism like we oppose racism, because they are the same thing ultimately.  Anything that diminishes human dignity is not compatible with Church teaching, and thus it should be condemned and rejected.  This includes racism, eugenics, and transhumanism, as well as any ideology from which they are derived (social Darwinism in particular, and Darwinian evolution in general).  

Those are some preliminary thoughts on the topic of transhumanism, although much more could be said about it.  I have already published things on this topic already that contain more detail, and those are available with a cursory search, as one has been published.  Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you next time. 

Sorting Out

 I am not sure why I felt inclined to write today, but I just did - it is approaching mid-May, and the school year is about to wind down which means my chapter at the school where I currently teach is about to come to its conclusion.  As you may have gathered, a part of me is extremely relieved about this, but another part of me is also uncertain about what is going to happen after my year here ends.  I suppose we will wait and see for all that.  But, that is not what I wanted to talk about today, as there are some other things on my mind, which as the title suggests I am going to just sort out as I write.  So, this may take some oddly random and unpredictable directions, but I am just going to go with it I believe. 

As I am sitting here in the cramped bedroom/office space I have where I currently live in a 106-year-old row house in downtown Baltimore, the one thing that is on my mind perhaps the most is finding a way to exit this city gracefully.  As I await a new position, much of where I end up going will be contingent upon what type of position I get and where it will be located.  In all honesty, I never really wanted to live in the middle of Baltimore - I didn't feel great about it even from day one, when I first moved in an evening in October after our unscheduled move from Hagerstown and a subsequent 12-day transitional period where I lived in a Motel 6 just outside Charles Town, WV.  That whole situation is something I don't think I have ever fully recovered from, but thankfully during that 12-day timeframe in Charles Town I was offered my current job here at this school at a salary I never dreamed I would earn, and almost 2 years later here we are.  In all honesty, I miss Hagerstown and Martinsburg (and by extension Charles Town) as that area felt more like home to me than this crazy city ever did.  Had I been blessed with an equally-good position there, I would have stayed.  The seven years I lived in Hagerstown were a menagerie of transitional events - I earned two degrees, lost two parents, my marriage ended, and I underwent a huge career transition from being a mid-level administrative office professional for over 27 years to becoming a full-time educator.  Many times it was not easy - the financial issues I faced in my last two years living there were, frankly, some frightening experiences.  However, one thing about that old mobile home in Hagerstown is that it was home - it felt like home, and I felt for once like I had the establishing of roots.  I miss that place - it was quiet, peaceful, and honestly perhaps the best place I have ever lived.  Was it perfect?  No.  But I had a life there.  Since leaving there at the end of 2024, I haven't quite felt like myself since, and that has been an honest struggle I have had.  I am not by any means financially hurting or anything like that, but I just feel like I don't really belong here.  Even on the very night I first moved into this place back in October 2024, I knew that my time here was temporary, and I think this is where my discussion is headed now. 

I don't feel that the school I am working at now was a mistake - for some reason (maybe to build a professional experience portfolio) I believe I needed to be here for a season.  But even from those first days, I knew this season would be short and that eventually I would be moving on somewhere else and doing something else.  I am not sure when the season itself will come to an end, but I am feeling it may be very soon just by the way things are shaping up now.  The particular school I am at has had challenges of its own - it is an inner-city school, with about 98% minority students, and it also lacks a lot in the way of what a traditional high school educational experience entails.  Also, as a Catholic school, at times it seems more secular and that the religious aspect of the school is just a necessary inconvenience that could be jettisoned at any time.  Being it is my first full-time education gig, I was frankly thrown into a den of proverbial lions, but I survived.  Not only that, but I also ended up by default becoming the chair for my department in the school, and that honestly is a boost.  However, I desire a more stable, more solidly Catholic, and less chaotic school environment than this school offers, and the principal thankfully was astute enough to see that and he chose not to renew my contract because he saw my discomfort with this whole situation too - he in essence did me a huge and valuable service, and that is appreciated.  Along with myself, there are 13 other faculty members leaving for a variety of reasons, and many of us have talked about those - many of them are not happy either, and they are also stressed, are having physical issues resulting from that stress, and they need a rest.  Many of my fellow colleagues who are leaving have become good friends over the past couple of years, and we will definitely stay connected in coming months as we all go onto our new opportunities.  Many of them, like myself, face uncertainties, but I think all of us will be in a good place soon.  Unlike what happened when life shifted dramatically in 2024 for me, I don't feel the same as I did then.  I am sure something is in the works, so we'll see what happens in the coming weeks. 

That last statement leads me to make a few observations.  Over the past 36 years, I have lived in a variety of places, ranging from the small peanut-farming college town of Graceville, FL, to the sprawling metropolis that is Baltimore.  And, prior to this recent residence here in Baltimore, I have lived in cities before - I lived for 5 years just outside St. Petersburg, FL, and I worked across Tampa Bay in the heart of downtown Tampa for a number of those years too.  So, the fact that Baltimore is a large city is not the reason I feel a bit out of sync here at all - I have lived in cities before with relatively little issues, and I lived in those cities comfortably.  The majority of my adult life has been spent in a number of other large urban areas too - Largo, FL, as well as Lakeland, FL.  Also, Dothan, AL, and Brunswick, GA.  And, I spent a short time even in San Dimas, CA, which is an outlying suburb of Los Angeles.  With the exception of  San Dimas - I really felt out of place there because I was not supposed to even be there then - I have generally felt pretty comfortable in most of those places.  And, I am no stranger to Baltimore either in all honesty - I lived here when I was 5, over 50 years ago, on the west side of town back when a lot more West Virginians lived here in those neighborhoods then.  So, what makes it different now?  It is a paradox in that I do believe I am supposed to be here for a season, but I don't feel a sense of permanence here, and haven't even from day one.  This was meant to be a temporary and short chapter, and I see it coming to an end now because in all honesty, I was here for a very specific purpose and I fulfilled that I believe.  A day does not go by where I am not missing the relative calmness of Hagerstown or the smaller areas of adjacent West Virginia, my home state.  I miss St. James Church, my parish in Charles Town too.  Although I really like the Dominican parish we attend here, it is not our old parish and I miss that.  There was something about that area that I felt plugged into, and if the right opportunity were to present itself, I would gladly go back there in an instant.  That may actually be possible, as there is a viable Catholic school in Hagerstown which for a short time was interested in me - I am noting that and have initiated contact with the principal there.  It remains to be seen if I go back there or we end up somewhere else, so all we can do is trust God and wait.  

As today's emphasis is about sorting out some things, I am starting to come to a conclusion that perhaps my mindset is not necessarily against Baltimore itself - Baltimore definitely has its problems, and I think I have enunciated that plenty.  If I were meant to be here for the long term, I would feel more comfortable staying here, but I don't.  Even a location with a lot of imperfections and faults, if one knows that is where they are supposed to be those faults will not be a factor.  So, Baltimore is not the fundamental problem - the sense of not being permanent here is.  I plan on exploring this further in my personal journal at some point, and may even present a small devotional lesson here on that.  I will think on that some more.

Thank you for allowing me to share today, and I will see you next time. 

Teacher Appreciation

 The first week in May is always called Teacher Appreciation Week, and there are festivities.  The appreciation we receive from grateful parents who entrust us with educating their children is a bit overwhelming, but we appreciate that.  This week, for instance, the parents of the kids sent in a ton of food - we had potluck on Tuesday, pizza on Thursday, and the mother and uncle of one of my students - she is Greek-American - brought us in quite an impressive breakfast spread this morning; the waffles and extra-sagey sausage patties alone were worth that.  Later today, I got a large card from my students also with notes of appreciation on it, including some from students I didn't expect - it definitely lightened my mood somewhat today for sure, and I will save that like I save a lot of other memoirs I have received over the years.  As much as I don't feel like I can take another day of what has been a tough year for us here, I also know that there are many roses in the thornpatch too and I see that with my kids everyday.  The thing I always tell myself is that if I can impact only one of 80 students I teach over 4 classes, I have done my job.  I find out in retrospect I touched the lives of more than one, and that makes all of this worth it.  However, this is where I hasten to say something a bit harsh, and I don't direct this at the students, the parents, or my colleagues who are also teachers - I direct it at school leadership.  In our school in particular, the leadership is often not as supportive of their teachers as they should be, and that may be a large factor as to why two-thirds of the current faculty (myself included) will not be returning next year. For professional decorum and also to keep some confidentiality standards in place, I will not name my school or its leadership, but I have a somewhat harsh critique of what goes on there that many don't see except maybe us.  Let me try to address this as delicately and succinctly as possible.

Our school is private, Catholic, and part of a larger network of similar schools across the United States.  The trademark attribute of this particular network in general and our school in particular is the fact that they have a 4-year work study program that places students one day a week at local employers where they gain experience and build professional skills.  In all honesty, it's actually a great idea, and when I talk to others about my particular school, I always mention this as one of the positives of it.  However, while the flagship school in this network is by and large a success story (it is in another city), the model has some things that haven't been completely thought out as they should be.  For instance, take the demographic of the network schools - the huge majority of them are in urban centers, and they are equally divided by student population between Black and Hispanic students.  In itself, that is fine, and minority kids should definitely be exposed to opportunities that can help them.  However, many of the network schools have missed two crucial elements in their educational theory.  First, the majority of the students (or at least a significant percentage) are not Catholic; this creates a problem for a school that has a Catholic identity, and as a Theology teacher at this particular school it often ties my hands from actually teaching the subject matter the way it needs to be taught.  Likewise, a significant number of the faculty are not Catholic either, and some who are unfortunately also possess an incorrect conception of what being Catholic means.  As a result, some weird political philosophies and religious ideas get entangled in the mix, making this as a Catholic school really no different spiritually than its public school counterparts.  The second issue this school has is a discipline problem - as many of these kids are minority students, it creates two problems.  First is entitlement - the "victim mentality" of some demographics of students makes them justify having horrendous behavior in class, and the students at my school have been known to curse out teachers, loudly disrespect us, and when these issues happen we often don't have any backup from the leadership to take measures to curb such behaviors - you cannot run a school like that.  Secondly, the students love to "play the victim" with teachers they think they can take advantage of, and the principal, vice-principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students all take the side of the student over a teacher trying to establish discipline in a classroom.  We are often instructed by the vice-principal in particular to write them up with a school-specific discipline slip, but nothing is ever done about that - when the vice-principal was asked about this, he basically said that he wants a "paper trail" to "cull the herd" at the end of the year.  The flawed logic behind this is profound, and one would think that immediately dealing with negative conduct and behavior would be a way to curb it and maybe help the student learn that consequences follow actions.  As a result, a sort of dismissive attitude exists among the students that they can get away with anything, and indeed they do.  This creates a number of stress-related problems for the teachers, and many of us dread waking up the next day to come to work knowing what we have to deal with.  Many of them also don't even do assignments - one student even brazenly crumpled up a paper assignment and threw it in the trash in front of me, and I gave him a failing grade on that as a result.  Also this year, another student actually assaulted a teacher - the teacher was fired over it, which I am still trying to comprehend - and it is not uncommon to see students pretending to go to the restroom and then skipping class.  Again, they know they get away with it.  In all honesty, when I was told my contract wasn't going to be renewed for another year, I had perhaps two of the best nights of sleep I have had in almost a year - you shouldn't have to feel like that potentially losing a job, but that was how I felt.  Thankfully, the vast majority of students are not like this, as many of them are actually good kids.  However, that significant percentage of troublemakers (and the majority of them are unfortunately part of one demographic) are sizeable enough to make things extremely difficult for any teacher, and to survive in such an environment, you learn quickly to have a strong set of cojones.  These kids can be like sharks smelling chummed waters with a teacher they perceive as weak, and they will sniff out and exploit any weakness they find.  So, how has the leadership of our school dealt with this, especially during a week that celebrates teacher appreciation?  Let me explain that.

As mentioned, we received relatively little gratitude from our leadership aside from some platitudes - mostly what we got was from others like the parents, the students themselves, and our fellow teachers. The leadership instead wanted to choke us with a lot of silly meetings (most of which contained redundant information) as well as stretching us further with extensive coverage of other classes.  Let me explain the coverage system for classes this school has, which in itself is not perfect by any means and was not thought through enough by those who instituted it.  For many schools - public and private - there are often a reservoir of substitutes who can fill in for teachers who need to take time off, and they come often from either a pool of prospective candidates or a certain number of people hired to do that specific job.  However, this is not the case at the school I work at!  When a teacher calls off, often what happens is that a teacher who may not have a class during that "code" (class period) is volun-told to cover the class by the assistant principal, and often that teacher gets stuck in a class where the students are a different grade level and the teacher is not familiar with them.  On specific work-study days when a grade level is doing their work-study assignments, the teachers for those classes become fair game for coverage, and we all dread looking at that damned coverage sheet when it is posted at 7 every morning.  The vice-principal too is not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and often he will double-cover classes, assign other teachers who have regular classes "by accident," or he just focuses on the name of a certain teacher and targets them for any coverage he sees - it is as if he looks and says "oooh, we can stick this teacher in 5 coverages today!"  The impact it has on teachers it that it chokes us with more responsibilities so we cannot do effective lesson planning, and the coverage system is like a punishment for teachers when their colleagues need to take off a day or two.  On one particular occasion, the vice-principal did a very boneheaded move when he scheduled myself and another teacher to cover a third teacher's classes, but all three of us were in Connecticut at a retreat and were actually sitting at the same table there having breakfast - we had a huge laugh over that one!  It is stuff like this that has contributed to a huge turnaround in faculty there in recent years, and the one thing I thank God for is that I won't be there for the mess they will likely have next year too!  Of course, in all honesty, I don't see a long survival rate for this school though, because the facts speak for themselves and there is no way a school like this in the condition it's in can be sustainable.  If I were a gambling man, I would wager that within a couple of years this particular school will close its doors for good, and I have others who agree with me.  There is a possibility that a "hail Mary" pass may be gifted to the school and it survives, but it will be a miracle of God himself if that happens.  Again, the facts and statistics don't paint a positive picture, but we'll see. 

Any rate, that is the reflection I wanted to share today, so I will leave it there until next time. 

Dealing With A Wolf

 I wanted to talk some today about something that happened at the school where I teach.  The CFO who is there, a semi-retired lawyer with extensive fundraising experience which is why the school enlisted his services, was speaking what were frankly some weird ideas about sacramental theology a couple of months back.  Today, in the faculty lounge, I ran into this guy, and what I heard from him was unsettling.  Let me get into the gist of his conversation. 

This man, who is also a graduate of Georgetown University, more or less enunciated a view of the Eucharist that was so Protestant-sounding that if he were a Baptist, it probably could have been easily rationalized.  However, this man claims to be a practicing Catholic.  Let me give you the gist of his theology.

He basically said that anyone and everyone should receive the Eucharist, regardless of who they are - that is not his decision to make, as it is contrary to Catholic Eucharistic theology.  When I confronted him on that, he more or less said that the Eucharist was not Christ, and that it was metaphorical language that should not have been taken literally - he was equating the institution of the Eucharist in the narrative of the Lord's Supper with the language in the parables, as if they were one and the same.  The argument has several flaws - first and foremost, the biggest flaw is his confusion of context.  The institution of the Last Supper was not the parables - the context was different, and the wording was quite clear.   Secondly, he tries to protest against Church authority and doctrine by saying the sacraments came centuries later, and that only the Roman Pontiffs promoted them.  He seems to forget about actual disciples of the original twelve Apostles, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who were talking about things like the Real Presence and Apostolic succession as early as the first century.  He also seems to forget that it is not just Roman Catholics who profess these truths - the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Churches, and even some Protestant traditions such as the Lutherans and Anglicans do as well. Even the more "memorialized" version of Communion that is observed as an "ordinance" by Baptists, Pentecostals, and other Evangelicals is taken so seriously enough that one has to be a baptized Christian to partake of it.  So, for this "educated fool" to say this was just so profound that I am still in shock.  I had heard the statistics - Catholics in name only who don't believe the Real Presence, and who don't even believe Christ was God.  But, to hear someone actually say it still shocks me. And this is why I call such a person a "wolf," because they are truly wolves in sheep's clothing.  Professing Catholics who believe like Protestants - this is why so much is going on in our Church too.  Reform needs to happen, and soon. 

The CFO is not the only wolf in the sheepfold there - we have an infestation of them in all honesty.  They are one reason as well why the school is having so many problems I believe, as they are inviting some adverse spiritual forces to influence that school - in an Ephesians 6 "principalities and powers" sense too.  This type of theological and spiritual rot also exists in many Catholic parishes, and I have seen it - when supposed Knights of Columbus members for instance are outright sympathetic to socialism and are pro-abortion, which I saw in a church a few years back.  Where faith is misappropriated like that, it leads to a demise of spiritual communion, and eventually moral compromise as well - take a look at so many "Uncle Teddys" over the past several years that almost bankrupted whole dioceses.  And then, when the Pope's second-in-command is a perverted man by the name of Cardinal "Tucho" Fernandez, we see fruits, rotten bitter fruits.  It has led me to ponder many things in the past few years, and I want to get into that now.

I am 100% Catholic - I believe the historic Magisterium, I uphold the Deposit of Faith, and I believe the faith as it has been passed down through the centuries.  Also, being an active Catholic educator, a Templar, and a Knight of Columbus, I believe in the proper defense and propagation of our faith as well.  But, the older I get, the more I see that two different Churches exist parallel to each other.  Jesus talked about this very thing in the parable of the wheat and tares, when he said that tares will infest the wheat and even choke it out - the Church therefore has a garden infested with the weeds of dissent and heresy.  This man, the CFO at our school, is evidence of the tare patches in the wheatfield, and in some sectors of what in Polish is called rola Bozha (God's field), the tares are overtaking the wheat.  When that happens, it compels some who wish to be faithful to face some difficult decisions - can I stay in this particular faith community that seems to label me an enemy?  This is why I will always maintain that true Catholic faith is not necessarily exclusively Roman - in many ways, I was more devoutly Catholic in a traditional Anglican parish for several years in all honesty.  And, the last couple of Popes don't leave much to be proud of either, and I want to state something here.  I believe that the Pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter, and as such he is also a vicar of Christ too.  However, let's clarify that terminology.  A vicar does not mean "in place of," which actually is what the term "Antichrist" means.  Rather, a vicar is an ambassador in much the same way a foreign dignitary represents his king or President.  Christ is the King (or Cristos Rex, to use the Latin), and the Pope is the viceroy of his Church on earth (or at least is supposed to be).  This means, however, that the Pope is not Christ, nor does he have any divine attributes - the Pope is a fallible human being just like the rest of us, and history has witnessed many bad Popes.  Also, the Church is not the Pope either - the Pope is actually accountable to the Magisterium, which embodies the Holy Tradition and teaching of the Church since Apostolic times.  If the Pope says or does anything that violates the Magisterial teaching of the Church, then the Pope is in error.  Popes can do this unwittingly sometimes - I don't think, for instance, that our current Pope Leo XIV is a bad guy at all, but I also don't think he correctly states things at times either, and he has made some bad mistakes in judgment - this is even more true of his predecessor Francis, who in recent times is probably the worst occupant of the Chair of Peter.  Another misconception that many Protestants (and even some less-informed Catholics) make is that every word out of a Pope's mouth is gospel truth - no it isn't.   The only time Papal infallibility can be invoked - the ex cathedra aspect of the Papal office in other words - is when it is consistent with Magisterial teaching.  If it contradicts it, then it is just a personal opinion of said Pontiff or at most maybe a pastoral declaration if it is written out.  Come to find out too, the ex cathedra authority of the Pope is rarely invoked, and many knowledgeable theologians can count on their fingers the number of times those encyclicals have been issued.  The vast majority of Papal documents and statements are pastoral in nature, meaning that the reader has a choice of whether or not to accept it or not.  What that means for the reader then is the responsibility to weigh such Papal communications in light of Magisterial teaching -  accept what aligns, and throw out what doesn't.  The Pope is not divine, he is not a prophet, nor is he a direct mouthpiece of God - most Popes were insightful enough to understand that.  It is often less-informed laypeople, or some cleric with an agenda, that tries to make such things more than what they are.  That being said, it is OK to disagree with the Pope - as a matter of fact, in many cases it may be the right choice!  It would eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion if people just understood that. 

Will a schism eventually happen in the Catholic Church?  Many saints and visionaries saw it coming, and to be honest, I am seeing fracture lines in the infrastructure of the Church myself.  So, what do we do should that happen?  Personally, I have come to a peaceful conclusion within myself to always err on the side of orthodoxy - the sound,orthodox part of a split is the Remnant, and the dissenters, even if they are a majority, are the actual schismatics.  So, if that eventually means the Church does schism in my lifetime, I will stay with the part that upholds truth, Magisterial truth, and also teaches the authentic Deposit of Faith.  What that looks like also remains to be seen too - it could be something completely new, or the orthodox remnant could unite with more orthodox and conservative groups such as the SSPX, the Continuing Anglicans, the Polish National Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox as a completely Western Orthodox tradition (which actually already exists, I might add - there have been Western-Rite Orthodox parishes for as long as there have been Eastern-Rite Catholic parishes).  I would be OK with any of those, and I would not be honest if I didn't admit that I have already began exploring options recently.  This is a topic that at some point I will explore in depth later as a teaching, as I need to refresh my memory regarding those writings of saints and visionaries who saw a Great Schism coming. It is highly possible we could be closer to that than we think, so we will see.  And, that whole topic intersects with other things, such as the prophecy of the Great Catholic Monarch, the eventual conversion of the Jews, etc.  But, as I am actually feeling somewhat drained and exhausted now, that is a discussion for another day. 

Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you next time.