For the past couple of years I have felt a calling to ordained ministry which I have tried to suppress because I have always wanted to be an actor. The thought of not being an actor (the only thing I have ever wanted to be since I was 12) in order to be a priest was very scary. I kept pushing it out of my mind, but I couldn't stop thinking about it. I knew God was trying to tell me something, yet I wasn't ready to hear his message. I was certain I was supposed to be an actor. After all, I am a darn fine actor if I do say so myself! But, a couple of years ago I read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's book God and the World and I fell in love with theology. I wanted to read as much theology as I could in order to better answer questions about Christianity. Ratzinger was the perfect theologian to start off with. Since then I have read as much as I can get my hands on...and I had started to accept what I thought was God's call for me to be a priest.
Then I began to think about the Anglican Communion. To start, the head of the church (the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams) approved a resolution in the Church of England to allow gay clergy to have civil marriages as long as they do not engage in sexual activity. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd? (I know for a fact I am not.) Also, Williams blessed the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bolwes, with whom he had an affair with and she was the reason Diana divorced Charles. Good job Archbishop of Canterbury on blessing an adulterer!! (an unrepentant one at that!!!)
I'm not even going to mention ECUSA or the Canadian Church.
Then I thought of the fact that the eucharist means one thing to one priest and something totally different to another priest within the Communion. Funny example here (actually it's not funny in the least bit! It's quite blasphemous.): I went to a Network affiliated Episcopal Church when I first moved to Pittsburgh that was supposed to be very Anglo-Catholic (which doesn't exist...see previous post) in which, when the priest was blessing the bread and wine he also had his thermal mug of coffee on the altar (which he carried with him the whole service and was drinking out of during his sermon) right next to the sacraments! I kid you not. He put the coffee on the altar!!!
Now don't get me wrong, I think the African bishops (Orombi, Akinola, etc.) are godly men who stand firm in their Anglican Faith and do not settle for the apostasy of any church within the Anglican Communion or even that of the Archbishop of Canterbury (by the way, did I mention he is good friends with the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA who is a heretic!), but I have become severely disillusioned with the Anglican Church.
So, I had decided to leave the Anglican Communion for the Roman Catholic Church. But I can't be a priest in the Catholic Church because I am married. Hence the dilemma. I feel called to be a priest, but I don't wish to remain an Anglican. Then God opened my eyes. If I can't be a priest in the Catholic Church, then I will go to grad school at Duquesne (a Catholic University) and get my Masters in Theology and become a theologian. I truly feel that God having me read Ratzinger's books (pre-Benedict XVI) which sparked my interest in theology and then Ratzinger becoming the Pope was a sign that I should become Catholic and be a theologian. It just took me until now to realize it. Sorry, God, but more often than not I am a bit slow in seeing and hearing what your will for me is.
Ever since I have decided to become a Catholic, my stress caused by the Anglican Church has instantly vanished. I feel so much better and happier.
Thank you God for opening my eyes to see your will for me and help me to always do things according to your will, not mine.
Please pray for Laura and me as we prepare to make the transition from the Anglican Church (and leave our familiar and comfortable worship community) to the Catholic Church.
Luke 12:22-31 22
He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. 23For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 24Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! 25And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?* 26If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest? 27Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin;* yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 28But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you-you of little faith! 29And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. 30For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31Instead, strive for his* kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."
Monday, October 31, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
Anglo-Catholic: Does It Really Exist?
I used to think so. I've read about the Oxford Movement and it's effect on the Anglican Communion. I've always attended "high-church" Episcopal services and always believed in the catholic teaching from an Anglican perspective. But with all that is going on in the Episcopal Church and in the greater Anglican Communion, I am starting to realize that it's all an illusion. There is no Anglican perspective to Catholicity. After all, John Henry Newman saw the futility of the Oxford Movement that he was so much a part of that he eventually became Catholic. He was even one of the Catholic Church's best cardinals! There is such a wide variance of beliefs within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion that one can't even express what the church as a whole believes. There is no central authority to keep heretical provinces/bishops/priests in check. ECUSA has became a Unitarian mess with no stated theology that can be uniformly professed and greater Anglicanism is split by different provinces with beliefs completely opposite of one another.
Since the topic of Anglicanism's Catholicity has been a recent debate amongst the religious blog-o-sphere, I couldn't help thinking about "Jews for Jesus." Why not just be Christian? They want to remain Jewish and still proclaim Jesus Christ as their savior. It's impossible. You can't be Jewish and Christian at the same time. Just as in the same way you can't be Anglo-Catholic. If you want to be Catholic, be a Catholic! When I think about my reasons of not becoming a Catholic I am at a loss. I believe in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Why am I not Catholic? One might say, "It's because of the Pope." To which I would respond, what's wrong with the Pope?! Now, if I had asked the question in the middle ages or even in the 16th century I would be able to understand not being Catholic because of the Pope...Kind of.
Sure the Catholic Church has had corrupt popes, but there has always been someone to counter it and get them back on track. When looking at the history of the Catholic Church and all that it has gone through and realizing that it is still going strong, you can't help but to believe that the hand of God is at work there. And look at the beginnings of the Anglican Church. Why did it break away? Honestly! Because Henry VIII was so pompous and full of conceit that he didn't want to accept that the Pope wouldn't let him divorce his wife and get married again. Where is the validity in that? "Marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God." This applies to King's as well.
This is a confusing time in my life right now. The thought of leaving my church in one denomination for a different denomination is scary. But do I want to stay in a church that's validity is questionable because I am comfortable or do I want to be in a church that I am certain is upholding and teaching the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith?
Maybe I will finally add Catholic to the "Irish and Dangerous" title....
I used to think so. I've read about the Oxford Movement and it's effect on the Anglican Communion. I've always attended "high-church" Episcopal services and always believed in the catholic teaching from an Anglican perspective. But with all that is going on in the Episcopal Church and in the greater Anglican Communion, I am starting to realize that it's all an illusion. There is no Anglican perspective to Catholicity. After all, John Henry Newman saw the futility of the Oxford Movement that he was so much a part of that he eventually became Catholic. He was even one of the Catholic Church's best cardinals! There is such a wide variance of beliefs within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion that one can't even express what the church as a whole believes. There is no central authority to keep heretical provinces/bishops/priests in check. ECUSA has became a Unitarian mess with no stated theology that can be uniformly professed and greater Anglicanism is split by different provinces with beliefs completely opposite of one another.
Since the topic of Anglicanism's Catholicity has been a recent debate amongst the religious blog-o-sphere, I couldn't help thinking about "Jews for Jesus." Why not just be Christian? They want to remain Jewish and still proclaim Jesus Christ as their savior. It's impossible. You can't be Jewish and Christian at the same time. Just as in the same way you can't be Anglo-Catholic. If you want to be Catholic, be a Catholic! When I think about my reasons of not becoming a Catholic I am at a loss. I believe in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Why am I not Catholic? One might say, "It's because of the Pope." To which I would respond, what's wrong with the Pope?! Now, if I had asked the question in the middle ages or even in the 16th century I would be able to understand not being Catholic because of the Pope...Kind of.
Sure the Catholic Church has had corrupt popes, but there has always been someone to counter it and get them back on track. When looking at the history of the Catholic Church and all that it has gone through and realizing that it is still going strong, you can't help but to believe that the hand of God is at work there. And look at the beginnings of the Anglican Church. Why did it break away? Honestly! Because Henry VIII was so pompous and full of conceit that he didn't want to accept that the Pope wouldn't let him divorce his wife and get married again. Where is the validity in that? "Marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God." This applies to King's as well.
This is a confusing time in my life right now. The thought of leaving my church in one denomination for a different denomination is scary. But do I want to stay in a church that's validity is questionable because I am comfortable or do I want to be in a church that I am certain is upholding and teaching the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith?
Maybe I will finally add Catholic to the "Irish and Dangerous" title....
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Funky Chicken
Check out this website and make the chicken do things. My favorites are kiss, puke, pray, and YMCA.
Check out this website and make the chicken do things. My favorites are kiss, puke, pray, and YMCA.
Black Sox No More!
The White Sox have done it! For the first time in 88 years the White Sox have won the World Series, thus eliminating the "Black Sox" scandal of 1919. The White Sox's streak without a win was two years longer than the Red Sox streak of 86 years without a win. This was definitely a pitching series...and the Sox bullpen was outstanding! Oh, and did anyone see Uribe's catch in the seats?! The White Sox own Chicago now. Too bad Cubs!
The White Sox have done it! For the first time in 88 years the White Sox have won the World Series, thus eliminating the "Black Sox" scandal of 1919. The White Sox's streak without a win was two years longer than the Red Sox streak of 86 years without a win. This was definitely a pitching series...and the Sox bullpen was outstanding! Oh, and did anyone see Uribe's catch in the seats?! The White Sox own Chicago now. Too bad Cubs!
The Commissioner Responds
Two days ago I received a letter back from the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig, to whom I wrote a couple of weeks ago regarding the ban on Shoeless Joe Jackson from baseball. Here is what is says:
Dear Mr. Garland:
Thank you for your letter of October 13, 2005.
I certainly understand your thoughts relative to "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and have the entire matter under review. Commissioner Kenesaw "Mountain" Landis made this decision over 75 years ago and the files are very lengthy, so there is a great deal to analyze. I understand the very deep feelings in this sensitive matter and appreciate the interest you have shown.
Thanks for taking time to write to me. I enjoyed hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Allan H. Selig
Commissioner of Baseball
Now, even if this was a form letter, it is still cool that he wrote back. What makes it even cooler is that he signed it personally!
I'm thinking about writing him back in about a month and asking him how the process is going!
Two days ago I received a letter back from the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig, to whom I wrote a couple of weeks ago regarding the ban on Shoeless Joe Jackson from baseball. Here is what is says:
Dear Mr. Garland:
Thank you for your letter of October 13, 2005.
I certainly understand your thoughts relative to "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and have the entire matter under review. Commissioner Kenesaw "Mountain" Landis made this decision over 75 years ago and the files are very lengthy, so there is a great deal to analyze. I understand the very deep feelings in this sensitive matter and appreciate the interest you have shown.
Thanks for taking time to write to me. I enjoyed hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Allan H. Selig
Commissioner of Baseball
Now, even if this was a form letter, it is still cool that he wrote back. What makes it even cooler is that he signed it personally!
I'm thinking about writing him back in about a month and asking him how the process is going!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
We've Adopted!
Cats, that is. Today we adopted two beautiful British Shorthairs named Mr. Darcy and Cassanova. They are great! They took a bit to get settled in, but now they feel right at home. Mr. Darcy is a scaredy cat and Cassanova lives up to his name in that he is a very loving cat. He's always looking to be pet. We were originally looking to only get one cat, but when a friend of a friend was looking to give away her cats, we couldn't split the brothers up, so we took both! They are going to be a wonderful addition to our family.
Cats, that is. Today we adopted two beautiful British Shorthairs named Mr. Darcy and Cassanova. They are great! They took a bit to get settled in, but now they feel right at home. Mr. Darcy is a scaredy cat and Cassanova lives up to his name in that he is a very loving cat. He's always looking to be pet. We were originally looking to only get one cat, but when a friend of a friend was looking to give away her cats, we couldn't split the brothers up, so we took both! They are going to be a wonderful addition to our family.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
The Naming Of Cats
The naming of cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, or George or Bill Bailey -
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter -
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum -
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover -
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.
By: T.S. Eliot
The naming of cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, or George or Bill Bailey -
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter -
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum -
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover -
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.
By: T.S. Eliot
Considering Abortion?
Then read this:
1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with the 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she's now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion? 4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he's upset. Would you recommend abortion?
In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!
Then read this:
1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with the 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she's now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion? 4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he's upset. Would you recommend abortion?
In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!
Friday, October 21, 2005
Psycho Brainwashed Cult Spokesman Of The Day: Tom Cruise
I recently watched the entire clip of Tom Cruise on the Oprah Show (yeah, you know the one!) at Scientomogy.info and I couldn't help wonder what is wrong with him!? He hasn't acted like this until recently and if you watch all recent interviews with him, you can't help but notice that he isn't all there and then you seriously consider whether the Scientologists have stepped up their brainwashing on him. He is absolutely mental now! (Yes, I did learn the word "mental" from the Harry Potter films) I also can't help but worry about poor Katie Holmes who was a nice Catholic girl until Tom got a hold of her and now she has become a Scientologist. How can anyone believe in a religion that was started by a SCIENCE FICTION writer? Are the celebrities who have joined it complete idiots unable to form a rational thought or what? Do they not realize that the religion is based on a fiction novel? (Note to stupid celebrities: Fiction means FAKE!)
To see how crazy Tom has become now, check this clip out from Australia's 60 Minutes.
Also, to find out the truth about Scientology check out Xenu.net.
I recently watched the entire clip of Tom Cruise on the Oprah Show (yeah, you know the one!) at Scientomogy.info and I couldn't help wonder what is wrong with him!? He hasn't acted like this until recently and if you watch all recent interviews with him, you can't help but notice that he isn't all there and then you seriously consider whether the Scientologists have stepped up their brainwashing on him. He is absolutely mental now! (Yes, I did learn the word "mental" from the Harry Potter films) I also can't help but worry about poor Katie Holmes who was a nice Catholic girl until Tom got a hold of her and now she has become a Scientologist. How can anyone believe in a religion that was started by a SCIENCE FICTION writer? Are the celebrities who have joined it complete idiots unable to form a rational thought or what? Do they not realize that the religion is based on a fiction novel? (Note to stupid celebrities: Fiction means FAKE!)
To see how crazy Tom has become now, check this clip out from Australia's 60 Minutes.
Also, to find out the truth about Scientology check out Xenu.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)