the church and me

So I was thinking about “church”. Maybe there are are two issues I have:

  1. ecclesiolatry
  2. clericalism

Ecclesiolatry means excessive or obsessive devotion to the church as an institution, its traditions, or its physical and ceremonial trappings, rather than to God or the spiritual faith it represents.

It is therefore necessary, on the one hand, to decisively overcome the scourge of clericalism. Listening and leaving aside stereotypes are powerful antidotes to the risk of clericalism, to which an assembly such as this is inevitably exposed, despite our intentions. Clericalism arises from an elitist and exclusivist vision of vocation, that interprets the ministry received as a power to be exercised rather than as a free and generous service to be given. This leads us to believe that we belong to a group that has all the answers and no longer needs to listen or learn anything, or that pretends to listen. Clericalism is a perversion and is the root of many evils in the Church: we must humbly ask forgiveness for this and above all create the conditions so that it is not repeated.

Pope Francis

There is something the same in each of the above. And I think it is not reserved to liturgy or hierarchical institutions. Some of the most “dictatorial clergy” I have met are non-conformist.

In the end, there is no institutional answer to a personal question.

Father Elijah

I am reading (is an audiobook still reading?) Father Elijah: An Apocalypse (while I recover from the dentist!!!). And it is most interesting (while a little preachy.) So some quotes:

Was there a missing component in all human beings? The rural masses seeking the metropolis; the urban young fleeing to the woods. Women pretending to be men; men becoming more like women; everyone aping divinity in his desperation to escape creaturehood? Western youths seeking the Orient; orientals seeking capitalism? Monks abandoning their monasteries; married men pining for solitude. Liberals seeking to demythologize the Scriptures in an attempt to flee the exigencies of biblical faith; fundamentalists seeking to fill the empty places in their religion by a return to the Old Testament, fleeing the tasks of the baptized intellect. Was the promise always to be found elsewhere, always just beyond the next horizon? Why this persistent need for signs, wonders, new pillars of fire, arks of covenant, tablets of stone—anything other than the demands of raw, laborious, darkest faith?

“I’m not sure. Exterior enemies are only part of the problem. There’s trouble inside the House of God.”
“I have seen hints of it creeping into the journals.”
“Hints? Lord, what have you been reading! It’s everywhere.”
“Just how bad is it, do you think?”
“I don’t think anyone has an accurate reading on the extent of it. But I’d say it’s pretty big. It’s going to get worse.”
“Why is it happening?”
“A lot of reasons. Spiritual temptation first and foremost. Intellectual pride. The thrill of being revolutionaries. It’s the disease of the century. C. S. Lewis called these people Late Western Man. They’re educated, affluent, restless, and unfulfilled. They’re rational man explaining and theorizing all the way down as he sinks into a totally subjectivized world. What better project for him than the complete demolition and reconstruction of the House of God, right?”
“Is it as conscious as that?”
“Not for most of them. There’s a pattern to their assumptions. With few exceptions, their ideas might be roughly summed up this way: ‘I am an idealist but a realist; I hope for a collective solution of the human problem; I no longer believe (or never have believed) in a transcendent God and organized religion. I believe in the god in man.’ ”

Russian cross

If you had to get a tattoo right now, what would it be and why?

Oh wow!!! Great question. I have two tattoos – one of Kierkegaard and the other my favourite quote – so I am not anti-tattoo.

Most likely, if I were to get another, it would be a Russian orthodox cross. Something simple! My tattoos are meaningful to me, they describe a period of my life. In the last year I have read much Russian literature with much appreciation. And some has been religious. So a Russian cross!

Maybe like this:

Jesus?!

How did you meet your significant other?

I did have a significant other but no more. And it is way too painful!!! So …

When did meet Him? At my baptism He introduced Himself but it took me a few years to get back to Him. I am still really bad with staying in touch but He is super kind and always welcoming. I try and He really appreciates it.

dentist

For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified

I have a visit to the dentist today – emergency type! I am terrified. I do not like the whole doctor thing but the pain is not much fun either. So the least evil of the two!

The above is from Mattins (1871 lectionary, if you must know). Nothing but Jesus! “Carry your cross and follow me”. Maybe that is the image to carry today?

Anyway …

nah!?

If you could relive one day from your past, which day would it be and why?

There are many days I remember with fondness, I would not want to relive any!

Why? My memory is better than the reality because it has a layer of time and emotion. Meeting a person is only special because of who they became to me. So some moments are special because of what came after them. So memory of what happened is better than the actual event.

How strange is that?!

monkerie

Cosin’s Primer, on the other hand, appearing unexpectedly and subversively in ‘our aged and noontide seasons of the Gospel’, was no less than a step on the way back to Popery, the provision for the observance of the canonical hours importing nothing else ‘but a necessitie of bringing in Monkerie and so of erecting cells again’

Introduction in JOHN COSIN, A Collection of Private “Devotions”

“Faithful Remnants”

The Religious Societies of the seventeenth century offer most practical and important witness. Associated with Anthony Horneck’s ministry at the Savoy Chapel, London, and later with William Beveridge and Robert Nelson, these societies arose as an attempt – and a successful one – to practise the full teaching of the Church as enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer. The initial influence of these societies, these “Faithful Remnants”, was enormous, and history supports their sanity and zeal. The recitation of the daily Office was central to their activity, a priest-director was an essential part of the system, while works of charity towards the poor were a natural outcome. It is significant that their demise came when extraneous interests in politics and sociology overbalance the original Godward intention. For most of our modern parochial organizations, the writing on the wall could hardly be plainer.

English Spirituality, 266