#institute on the catechism

[feastingonchrist]

been reading up on Methodist theology a little bit (well, what it says on the wiki page and the global Methodist catechism) and from what i have seen so far, they're pretty based and teach some things i have already believed/agreed with anyways lol. so i think it's funny that i ended up in the Methodist church, especially considering that when i watched one of RZ's brief explanation of the Methodist Church last year, i have wanted to check it out ever since then. so i did. i'm learning by experience & studying theology. so far, i love the Methodist Church!!! i don't/won't agree with everything though, and i think that's actually very healthy in any Christian denomination bc: sola scriptura.

[greypistacchio]

He literally said "God loves us ALL" and his first words were about peace, unity and dialogue, I reckon this is as progressive as a Pope gets!! thank fuck!! 😭🫶🏻

EDIT.- I didn't say he was woke or progressive, I said as woke or progressive AS IT GETS considering, mostly, that there was insane pressure from conservative factions within society & the Church to pick someone who would undo everything Francis did that was even remotely decent. Were there more progressive candidates? Yes, I'm sure, but do you SERIOUSLY think that they stood a chance after Francis!? He was seen as a Communist FFS, and his successor was definitely NOT going to be someone who might turn the human rights up a notch. Sorry to bring the mood down, but them choosing an actually progressive Pope was about as likely as the ESC committee kicking Israhell out of the competition.

It's in THAT regard that I'm relieved, because yeah, the guy is far from perfect and has queerphobic views (which are literally in line with the views upheld by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mind you). But for fuck's sake. Right now we don't get to protest that the new head of one of the most regressive institutions on Earth isn't as progressive as we'd like, alright? He was one of the lesser evils, so I would say that that's enough reason to be glad that we didn't get a turbofascist Pope. For YEARS I've been hearing conservative family members pray that we'd get someone who would "undo the Communist disgrace this Antichrist of a Pope is putting the Church through" (I shit you not, they were actually calling Francis that), so frankly...

I might come across as overly excited for this dude, but in truth I'm just relieved that we weren't hit with a Hitlerinni McBigoted kind of guy given the Church's funny tendency to make up for the odd "progressive" Pope (such as Francis) by picking grotesquely conservative successors from the deepest pits of the far right 🤡

EDIT 2.- As some users pointed out in the tags and made me aware of, he's lived in Peru for approximately 40 years and received the Peruvian citizenship. Since I'm not from Peru, I don't think it's my place to decide whether he is or isn't "Peruvian enough", but congrats Peru on scoring a Pope! 🇵🇪

[thecatholicbozo]

New Year's Spiritual Reading & Learning Recommendations

Considering that one of the most popular New Year's resolutions is to read more, I thought it would be fun to share a list of good books that have been influential or important in your spiritual journey so far!

Please feel free to reblog & add your own recommendations or to echo a recommendation that has already been made!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Aquinas Catechism by St Thomas Aquinas, edited by the Sophia Institute Press

The Life of St Catherine of Siena by Blessed Raymond of Capua

The Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena

Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice by William A Hinnebusch, OP

The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods by Father A. G. Sertillanges, OP

Thomas Aquinas: Scholar, Poet, Mystic, Saint by Father A. G. Sertillanges, OP

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis (particularly the section on the Blessed Sacrament)

A Catholic Viewpoint on the Four Temperaments by Brother Hermenegild TOSF (particularly the final section on prayer)

Manual for Men by Bishop Thomas J Olmsted

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

by Justin Adour

Remembering who we are in Christ empowers our ability to live faithfully. If we are to be killing sin, we must remember our status in Christ. We belong to the Lord, body and soul, as the Heidelberg Catechism reminds us. Therefore, we are sanctified as we are being sanctified and, as a result, can trust the Lord in all…

[portraitsofsaints]

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

Doctor of the Church

313-386

Feast Day: March 18

Patronage: Czechoslovakia, Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem had an exceptional education and was ordained a Bishop of Jerusalem during the Arian heresy. He instructed neophytes in the Catechism, explaining the Orthodox Catholic theology; this doctrine is still valuable today. He was exiled twice because of Arian followers, but returned in 378 to find Jerusalem torn in heresy, schism, and was crime-ridden. He worked hard to return it to the faith. At the Council of Constantinople, he championed orthodoxy, clarified that Christ has the same nature as the Father, and used the word “Consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed.

Prints, plaques & holy cards available for purchase. (website)

[ffcrazy15]

How do you square being an anti capitalist with your stance on the institution of marriage? Historically speaking, marriage was often more a financial choice than anything much to do with love, as I'm sure you're aware. It remains so in much of the world. A ring and a piece of paper from the government doesn't automatically make a partnership any deeper or more enduring than one without. There are countless millions of dysfunctional and loveless marriages just as there exist countless millions of relationships thriving without one. I get that you're Catholic and that must have a lot to do with it, but it just strikes me as a sort of oddly-contradictory set of beliefs.

Completely fair question, and the first thing I'll say is there's no way to answer it sufficiently in a Tumblr post. Probably the smartest person in the world on this question wrote a whole book on it, I'll try to give the short version.

So the first thing I'd say is that, from a contemporary Catholic perspective, marriage should never be a merely financial agreement. We would consider that a perversion of marriage, likewise with an abusive marriage. (Forced marriages, including for financial reasons, don't even count for us as marriages, they're just shams masquerading as marriage.)

In our view marriage is not a thing inherent to capitalism but rather predates it, and every other social/political system; capitalism is just the system we're all currently living under, which like all shitty systems twists even good things like marriage to its own ends whenever possible. Marriage existed and was twisted by even shittier systems in the past (like feudalism), and will exist in whatever (hopefully better) system comes after capitalism.

Second, Catholics believe that radical love—of God, neighbor and self—is the primary goal of every human life. The Catholic Catechism phrases it as, "God who created man [humanity] out of love calls him to love—the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being."

Marriage is one way of doing that; for Catholics, marriage is supposed to be a complete, mutual gift of oneself in love to the other: "For man [humanity] is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man." From our view the whole purpose of marriage is to form a radical friendship of love with someone else, seeing them as God sees them, and creating a single shared life with them which ordinarily results in the overflow of that love literally creating new life (which their mutual love for one another is prepared to nurture and grow).

(Also a note: for us, the “ring and piece of paper” bit are not essential; the exchange of permanent commitment between the spouses is what I mean when I say “marriage,” and government acknowledgment isn’t strictly necessary.)

Third, you're absolutely right that the institution of marriage, in our extremely fucked up world, has too often been a merely monetary contract. Again, Catholics consider that a perversion of marriage and, depending on the severity, possibly not even real marriage at well. As you pointed out, unfortunately that isn't the worst perversion of marriage that exists either.

Importantly, we don't think that those dysfunctions come from the institution of marriage itself, but from human shittiness which infects marriage and poisons what in itself is a good and beautiful thing. You can see this when looking at good vs. bad marriages: the type of relationship itself is an inherently good thing (two people committing to take care of each other, love each other and stand by each other and the children they create out of love, for as long as they both shall live), but without care and hard work the flaws that people bring into a marriage can fuck it over (greed, laziness, control and domination, self-interest, etc.). The rot is not an inherent part of the fruit, so to speak; the corruption comes from the outside, it's not an inherent part of the institution. Capitalism is one of those many corrupting influences. But the thing itself is still good.

Fourth, you're also right that there are lots of relationships out there that aren't marriages that are good and wholesome and happy. I would never deny that, and if that's how I came off in my (flippant and unkind) response, then I'm sorry.

The thing is that, if these are romantic relationships that aren't trending towards a permanent commitment (marriage) but are sort of just plodding along, then as good as they are, they're still lacking. They're not complete yet, and that incompleteness hurts people in both subtle and serious ways.

Let me phrase it this way: Which one do people really want, a relationship that says "I enjoy your company and find you fun and interesting, but despite the great length of time we've known each other and the amount of care we've both shown to each other, I can't be sure I won't find a better option than you, so I don't want to lock myself down just yet"? Or, "I love you with all my heart, you are my closest companion and I want to be with you forever, and I love you in spite of all your flaws and commit to standing beside you as you work on them; I want to work on my flaws for you because I want to be the partner you deserve, for the rest of our lives together"?

I think if people are honest, what they want is the latter. We all want to be seen and loved unconditionally, in spite of our faults. We all want to be shown that we're worthy of that kind of love. I also think there are a lot of people who actually are in the second kind of relationship or both want to be, they just haven't finalized it for whatever reason. I think that reason is often fear, and that that fear should be faced and overcome.

Fifth, I just wanna admit that I was a flippant ass in my response to that other post. I try not to be that way even when I'm annoyed, and I shouldn't have snapped back the way I did, even if I did feel the OP was insulting my religion. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out even when I didn't exactly predispose people to want to do that.

[emptyjanitor]

New testament authorship

Let’s break down directly and clearly, sticking strictly to the scholarly consensus and historical facts about the New Testament’s authorship, why American mainstream Christianity often doesn’t teach this, and what the Bible actually is.

1. Factual Authorship of the New Testament

Scholarly consensus—meaning mainstream, non-fundamentalist academic biblical studies—has long since established that most New Testament books are either anonymous or pseudonymous. Here’s a summary of the best evidence for each:

The Gospels

• Matthew, Mark, Luke, John:

None of the gospels name their authors in the original texts. The names were assigned later, likely in the second century, to give the texts apostolic authority.

• Mark: The earliest gospel. Author is unknown; traditionally attributed to “Mark,” but no evidence supports this.

• Matthew: Anonymous. Tradition credits “Matthew,” but the text copies much from Mark (odd for an eyewitness apostle).

• Luke: Anonymous. Author was educated, not an eyewitness, probably a companion of Paul, but not necessarily named “Luke.”

• John: Anonymous. Tradition attributes it to John the Apostle, but the text itself never says this, and internal evidence suggests it wasn’t written by a direct eyewitness.

Pauline Epistles

• Undisputed letters of Paul: Scholars are confident Paul wrote seven letters: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

• Deutero-Pauline letters (disputed authorship): Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians. Most scholars think these were written by followers of Paul in his name.

• Pastoral Epistles: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus. Overwhelming scholarly consensus: written long after Paul’s death, by unknown authors using his name.

• Hebrews: Anonymous. The text itself never claims Paul as author, and the Greek style and theology are very different from Paul’s letters.

Other Letters

• James: Anonymous; attributed to “James,” but which James? There were several. Highly unlikely the brother of Jesus wrote it.

• 1 & 2 Peter: Almost universally agreed by scholars that Peter did not write these, especially 2 Peter, which is clearly pseudonymous.

• 1, 2, 3 John: Anonymous. 2 & 3 John are brief and refer to “the elder.” No evidence these were written by John the Apostle.

• Jude: Claims to be by “Jude, the brother of James,” but there’s no way to verify this, and the letter is highly stylized.

Revelation

• Revelation: Claims authorship by “John,” but it’s almost certainly not the same John as the gospel, given radically different Greek, theology, and style.

⸻

2. Why American Mainstream Christianity Is Unfamiliar With This

Several reasons explain the gap between academic knowledge and mainstream Christian belief:

A. Tradition and Catechism

• Churches teach tradition, not historical criticism. Sunday school, sermons, and even many seminaries rely on inherited attributions (Matthew wrote Matthew, etc.) because these give the texts apostolic authority and reinforce doctrinal unity.

B. Institutional Interests

• The church’s power and authority rest on the idea that scripture is divinely inspired, authoritative, and connected directly to Jesus and his apostles. Admitting most books are anonymous, pseudonymous, or written generations later could undermine confidence and religious authority.

C. Anti-Intellectualism and Distrust of Academia

• Many American denominations (especially Evangelical and Fundamentalist branches) view “secular scholarship” with suspicion, seeing it as hostile to faith. Academic biblical criticism is often dismissed as biased, “worldly,” or “faithless.”

D. Lack of Religious Literacy

• Most Christians don’t read the Bible deeply, let alone read critical scholarship. Religious education in the U.S. is shallow; most believers simply inherit beliefs from family and community.

E. Publishing and Media

• Christian publishers, bookstores, and media overwhelmingly promote traditional views. Scholarly works rarely reach the mass audience, and if they do, they’re often denounced as heretical.

⸻

3. What the Bible Actually Is (Factually)

The Bible Is:

• A Human Anthology: The Bible is a collection of ancient texts, written by dozens of different people over many centuries. The New Testament was written in Greek, by Jews and Gentiles in the eastern Roman Empire, between roughly 50 CE and 120 CE.

• A Library, Not a Book: It’s not a single book, but an anthology—each “book” with its own agenda, context, style, and theology.

• Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works: The vast majority of its books do not name their authors. Most names attached to biblical books (Moses, Matthew, etc.) are traditions, not claims made by the texts themselves.

• Edited and Redacted: Many biblical books were edited, redacted, or compiled from earlier sources, both oral and written. Some gospels and epistles were likely revised over time.

• Political and Theological Documents: Each book has its own agenda. Some gospels and letters were written to address controversies, define orthodoxy, or combat rival Christian sects.

• Product of Historical Communities: The texts reflect the beliefs, hopes, struggles, and politics of various early Christian communities, not a unified, consistent message.

⸻

4. What the Bible Is Not

• Not Dictated by God: There is no evidence any part was directly dictated by God to a scribe. Even the writers themselves rarely claim this.

• Not Eyewitness History: The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They were written decades after the events they describe, drawing on oral traditions and earlier sources.

• Not Consistent or Inerrant: The Bible is full of contradictions, differing theologies, and even mutually exclusive accounts (see the resurrection narratives, genealogies of Jesus, and chronology of Paul’s life).

• Not Frozen or Unchanging: The canon itself was debated for centuries, with books being added and removed. The version Protestants use is different from Catholic and Orthodox canons.

⸻

5. Bottom Line

The New Testament is a messy, complex collection of ancient texts, written mostly by unknown authors, with competing theologies and purposes, reflecting the turbulent, diverse origins of Christianity. The myth that it is a single, unified, divinely authored, eyewitness record is a product of later tradition, religious politics, and the need for institutional authority—not historical reality.

[cruger2984]

THE DESCRIPTION OF SAINT ANTHONY ZACCARIA The Patron Saint of Physicians and Eucharist Adoration Feast Day: July 5

"We manifest our love for God in our observance of His commandments and in our readiness to obey, even His smallest decree."

Anthony Mary Zaccaria, the promoter of the devotion to the Passion of Christ, the Eucharist and the renewal of the religious life among the laity, the founder of the Clerics Regular of Saint Paul (aka the Barnabites) and an early leader of the Counter Reformation, was born Antonio Maria Zaccaria, in Cremona, Duchy of Milan (present-day Italy) in 1502. After the early death of his father Lazzaro, his mother, Antonia Pescaroli Zaccaria, made him her almoner, took care of his spiritual growth, cultivating compassion and mercy for the poor.

After attending the Episcopal School annexed to the cathedral, he studied philosophy at the University of Pavia, he studied medicine at the University of Padua, and at the age of 22, he returned home to practice.

But he soon realized that his vocation was to heal souls rather than bodies. Accordingly, he began to study theology and teach catechism to the youth. He started studying for the priesthood in 1527, and ordained a priest two years later in 1529.

Having explored his calling for two years, mainly by working in hospitals and institutions for the poor, he became spiritual advisor to Countess Ludovica Torelli of Guastalla (then the tiny County of Guastalla) in 1530, and followed her to Milan. There, he became a member of the Oratory of Eternal Wisdom.

Anthony moved to Milan, where he helped in the foundation of a female congregation dedicated to the rescue of girls - the Angelic Sisters of Saint Paul. Two years later, together with two fellow priests, he founded the Clerics Regular of St. Paul, also known as the Barnabites, with the purpose of renewing the Church by frequent preaching and the worthy administration of the sacraments.

Since their headquarters were in the Church of St. Barnabas, they became popularly known as Barnabites. They preached in churches as well as in the marketplaces, and also worked for the poor and the sick. He's left only a few writings: twelve letters, six sermons, and the constitution of the Barnabites.

While on mission to Guastalla in 1539, he caught a fever. Combined with the strict penances he performed, his health worsened and he died on July 5, 1539, at the age of 36. Luca di Seriate, the suffragan bishop, who had ordained him a priest, presided over his funeral.

In attendance were the aristocrats and people of Cremona and the surrounding towns. Anthony was buried in the San Paolo Convent of the Angelics of Saint Paul, the female branch of the Barnabites, in Milan.

27 years later after his death, his body was found incorrupt, and his mortal remains are now enshrined at the Church of Saint Barnabas in Milan, Italy. On May 27, 1897, Pope Leo XIII canonized him a saint.

[eternal-echoes]

“The catechism for the 2015 World Meeting of Families explained it this way: "In the case of marriage, when husbands and wives give themselves to one another with a love that imitates Jesus, their gift of self to each other is part of the work of Christ, joining in the same spirit of Jesus' own gift of himself for the Church. When the spouses exchange their vows in church at their wedding liturgy, Christ receives their nuptial love and makes it part of his own Eucharistic gift of self for the Church and the Father who, pleased by the offering of the Son, gives the Holy Spirit to the spouses to seal their union."(22)

These are more than just religious-sounding words. They have intensely practical consequences. Because married love is so closely united to Christ's love for the Church, it requires making Christlike sacrifices and is a "cruciform self-sacrificial communion."(23) Through this cruciform communion, spouses are more united to Jesus Christ.(24) By giving and receiving love, even in their ordinary obligations, Vatican II notes, spouses "are penetrated with the Spirit of Christ, who fills their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly advance toward their own perfection, as well as toward their mutual sanctification, and hence contribute jointly to the glory of God."(25)

-Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World

—

(22) Love Is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), no. 105, catechism of the 2015 Eighth World Meeting of Families.

(23) Love Is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), no. 105, catechism of the 2015 Eighth World Meeting of Families, no. 32.

(24) "Christian marriage also represents for both consorts a way to attain an ever-increasing union with Jesus. As the bond has been concluded in Jesus and toward Jesus, the increase of conjugal love also means a growth of the love of Jesus." Dietrich von Hildebrand, Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1984), 61.

(25) Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.

[queer-reader-07]

Making a Home in the Liminal Space

I grew up catholic. I was born into it, baptized as an infant, first communion in second grade, roughly 8 years in catholic school, and all of it culminated in getting confirmed at age 14. Catholicism was my life, in many ways it was my only constant in life. Schools changed, people came and went, but church was always there. Every Sunday with my family and every Wednesday with my classmates I found myself either in the pews ready to pray or in the choir area ready to play the hand chimes throughout Mass. I went to catechism every Wednesday night for years in elementary school. I attended youth group with my friends. There are still parts of the Bible that I know like the back of my hand.

But then I grew up. I grew up and I realized that I thought girls were pretty in a way that gave me butterflies in my stomach and that I didn’t quite feel like a girl anymore. I grew up and I went through changing labels before I found words like ‘queer’ and ‘trans’ and ‘asexual’ that made me feel at home. And while that home is comforting in so many ways it is also not a home that is compatible with the religion that held me for so long. Catholicism was my life, I was in Church at least twice a week for years of my life. But Catholicism doesn’t leave room for queerness, it doesn’t embrace and hold close what I am. Who I am.

A friend asked me recently if I still I identify as catholic. If I, someone who is now staunchly leftist and proudly and openly queer, aligned with a religion that is so notoriously bigoted and conservative. Easy answer, right? Just say no? How could someone like me ever call themselves a catholic? And good god, I wish it were that simple.

Because, the thing is, I tried to just say no. I tried to say “eh not really,” but it felt so deeply disingenuous. It felt wrong. How do I denounce a faith that was my life for 15 years with a simple “no”? How do I go from staunch catholic to atheist in the blink of an eye? I can’t.

To be honest, I’m not sure where I fall on the spectrum of spirituality and religiosity. It feels like a lie to say I believe in God, but it doesn’t feel anymore honest to say that I don’t believe in God.

I know I believe in love. I believe in the power we as people have to do wonderful and amazing things. I believe in hope’s ability to help one through the darkest of times. I believe in humanity, in the human story. But none of that is mutually exclusive from religion, from Catholicism.

I think, right now, I exist in the liminal space between catholic and atheist. I can’t bring myself to align myself with an institution that doesn’t believe in my right to exist. But I also can’t bring myself to fully denounce the faith that held me for so many years. I can’t bring myself to denounce the faith that was my only real constant for all those years. I haven’t been to Church on my own volition in ages, yet I refuse to take down the rosary adorned crucifix above my bed. I don’t pray all that often anymore and yet I could recite the Our Father without a second thought. I don’t go around professing any faith in God and yet the phrases “good lord” and “for the love of all that is holy” seem to leave my mouth daily. These are the things that make up the liminal space. The not quite prayer, the familiar comfort of a crucifix and rosaries about my bed, the acceptance that I’ll never have a secular vocabulary. It’s weird, it’s contradictory, and yet here I am existing in it.

There is still so much beauty I find in the world that feels like it must be more than mere coincidence. I think a lot about hope. About how it feels so unique to the human condition and I can’t help but wonder why. Did someone, something, endow us with hope? So that we could never cease in our endeavors of discovery and creativity? So that we would not lose sight of a better future? Or, did we just get lucky?

But I don’t think that’s God, necessarily. I don’t know that it’s one being, but I’m not confident it’s no being.

Existing in the liminal space is difficult. Because to be here is to know you can’t ever go back while still grappling with where you’re meant to go now. I hope that one day I find a new home, a home that isn’t built on guilt and shame for merely daring to exist. But for now, I am making a home in the liminal space. I am letting this liminal space hold me in any way it can while I work to figure out what I am outside of the church. And I hope that wherever I go next— whatever space becomes my home after I outgrow the liminal space— I hope it welcomes me with open arms and a warm embrace.

[buggie-hagen]

As truly as I can say that the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer were not spun out of anyone's imagination but are revealed and given by God himself, so I can boast that baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. ~Large Catechism 4:6

[lboogie1906]

Elias Neau (1662 – September 7, 1722) born Élie Neau, in Moëze, Saintonge, was a French Huguenot. He was a prosperous merchant. He was captured by a French privateer near Jamaica, and as a Protestant, was sentenced to a life sentence as a galley slave and imprisoned in Marseille. He was released. He was elected to the position of the elder of the French church in New York. He secured passage of a bill in New York stating that enslaved could be catechized. The Episcopal Church commemorates him as a “witness to the faith” on September 7.

For the African American enslaved, a catechizing school was opened in New York City under their charge. He called the attention of the Society to the great number, of enslaved in New York “who were without God in the world, and of whose souls there was no manner of care taken” and proposed the appointment of a catechist to undertake their instruction. He obtained a license from the Governor, resigned his position as an elder in the French church, and conformed to the Established Church of England. He was licensed by the Bishop of London.

African Americans and Indians among them to the Christian Religion. Further confidence in him was attested by an act of the Society in preparing at his request “a Bill to be offered to Parliament for the more effectual Conversion of the African Americans and other Servants in the Plantations, to compel Owners of enslaved to cause children to be baptized within 3 months after their birth and to permit them when come to years of discretion to be instructed in the Christian Religion on our Lord’s day by the Missionaries under whose ministry they live.”

His school suffered greatly in 1712 because of the prejudice engendered by the declaration that instruction was the main cause of African Americans. Only one African American connected with the school had participated in the affair and most criminals belonged to the masters who were opposed to educating them, the institution was permitted to continue its endeavors, and the Governor extended his protection and recommended that masters have their enslaved instructed. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[eremosjournal]

The Eighth Sacrament

by Chad Hewitt

For many Catholics, the mass can be a transcendent experience that brings them closer to God. For many others, it can leave them feeling confused, angry and empty given the church’s problematic teachings and the amount of corruption and hypocrisy within the institution. More commonly than either of those, the Catholic mass can be incredibly fucking boring. Fortunately, there is an alternative to the rite for those of us who, for whatever reason, cannot stomach the eucharist: drag shows. On the surface, the mass and drag shows seem like holy water and makeup remover, but the fundamental elements are remarkably similar.

First and foremost are the parallels in theatrical production. Both the mass and a drag show require an audience (or congregation), a performer (or a priest), a stage (or an altar), and a blood sacrifice (or an attention starved twink). In either environment, you might see a fog machine delivered via dry ice or incense. As for stunts, the Catholic mass is considerably lacking in both costume reveals (only one chasuble per performance?) and its interpretations of nineties pop songs (Sister Act soundtrack notwithstanding.) Nevertheless, both experiences provide symbols and rituals that awaken the senses and hopefully lift the human spirit. Drag just does it better.

Second is the inherent community engagement present in both the mass and drag shows. You might say the words to the Lord’s Prayer in unison with strangers at church in the same way that you might lip sync the words to a Britney Spears song with strangers in a dimly lit gay bar. You can either empty your wallet of loose one dollar bills into a collection plate or a silicone breast plate. The primary point of differentiation, however, is where the church has strict terms of how and when you can participate (see: the catechism). A drag show’s only restriction is the bar’s maximum occupancy (and your age, of course, depending on the kind of content). The church may not find you fit to receive the eucharist, but a queer bar’s doors are always open. Regardless, in both contexts, individuals come together because of a common interest in finding something special outside of the mundane and to not feel so alone. Drag just does it better.

Last but not least is the act of transformation. The core of the Catholic mass is the miracle of “transubstantiation”, wherein a cracker and Carlo Rossi are transformed into figurative skin and blood. But more miraculous on a tangible level is the transformation of an ordinary human person that works at a bank into a supermodel, a Pokemon character, or Jesus herself. For anyone who has ever actually attempted drag, even if just by putting on a wig, they experience an internal metamorphosis that is liberating and joyful. A new person is discovered, you feel reborn. Both the mass and drag aim to provide access to a higher plane of existence through transformation. Drag just does it better.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Nine Things You Should Know About the Westminster Confession

by John R. Bower

After nearly 400 years of service, the Westminster Confession of Faith continues to provide Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide a vibrant summary of Scripture’s principal teachings. But how has this document, drawn from a strikingly different age, remained equally relevant to today’s church?

In exploring this question, we consider nine essential elements of the Confession whereby the 17th-century Reformed church can be seen as standing arm in arm with the 21st-century church and beyond.

I. The Westminster Confession was designed as a doctrinal compass to keep the scriptural bearings of the church true, even when tossed by error and division. Civil war had thrown the Church of England into political, social, and ecclesiastical upheaval, and as its first step toward rebuilding the church, Parliament convened a national assembly of clergy to advise on the most scriptural guides for doctrine, worship, and government. Between 1643 and 1648, the Westminster Assembly of Divines created six separate documents for equipping the church anew, but of these the Confession of Faith was key. It alone expressed the mind of the church concerning the truths of Scripture and meshed the documents of worship and government into a unified working system.

II. From its inception, the Confession stood subordinate to the Word of God. In writing the Confession of Faith, the assembly remained passionately committed to the Reformation dictum of sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone speaks with final authority in all areas of faith and life. Indeed, the Confession’s statement “On the Scripture” is the document’s first and longest chapter. Here, Scripture is declared the inspired, infallible, sufficient, understandable, and the supreme judge of all disputes. Throughout the assembly’s work, members were oath-bound to affirm only those propositions supported by Scripture. Reflecting this commitment to the Word, the Confession’s 33 chapters bristle with more than 4,000 verses.

The Confession’s 33 chapters bristle with more than 4,000 verses.

III. In presenting the core truths of Scripture, the Confession followed a comprehensive and unified system of faith, reaching as far back as the Apostle’s Creed. Indeed, among the major Protestant confessions of the Reformation (Augsburg, Belgic, French, Second Helvetic), not only were the principle truths of Scripture held in common, but these doctrines were sorted into the same broad system of faith in God and duty to God. Following its creedal predecessors, the Westminster Assembly carefully preserved this doctrinal division of faith and service—a distinction the Shorter Catechism more expressively rendered as “what we are to believe concerning God” and “what duty God requires of man.”

IV. In its opening chapters, the Confession represents the heart of Reformed orthodoxy and historic Christianity. Here, the doctrines of faith emerge in three parts: God’s creative work and man’s fall (chs. 1–6), Christ’s work as Redeemer (chs. 7–8) and the Holy Spirit’s work in applying redemption (chs. 9–19).

V. The remaining part of the Confession (chs. 20–33) describes the believer’s responsibility to serve God, a service that embraces our neighbor, the state, and the church. The church, however, provides the principle venue wherein we serve God. Moving through chapters 25–31, the Confession elaborates on the doctrine of the church, the communion of the saints, the sacraments, and the far-reaching scope of church discipline. And culminating the saint’s life of service to God is entrance into the church glorious, described by the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment (chs. 32–33).

VI. “Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience” affirms how the individual believer’s conscience is free to serve Christ alone. But this freedom of conscience is further subject to those lawful civil and ecclesiastical authorities instituted by Christ. Balancing the several God-ordained authorities over conscience proved one of the assembly’s greatest challenges in framing the Confession, especially when faced with increasingly autonomous parishioners and competing civil and ecclesiastical claims of authority.

VII. The Confession offers a superlative platform for expressing consensus on the doctrines of Scripture and building unity within the church at large. When the Westminster Assembly labored to rebuild the church in the 17th century, England—like Scotland and many regions on the continent—recognized only a single church, making unity a societal as well as an ecclesiastical imperative. Today, although multiple denominations have replaced the single church model of the Reformation, the Confession retains its place in fostering unity within, and between, Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide.

VIII. Found within each of these nine essentials of the Confession is the centrality of Christ’s church. Guided by Scripture alone, the Confession affords a doctrinal anchor expressing the breadth of faith within the framework of the historic church. Saints are carefully guided in rendering their fullest service to God, especially within the visible church, where they are built toward unity in the one faith. In fact, while the Confession can be seen as enveloping all the great solas of the Reformation, it excelled in advancing the “forgotten sola” of sola ecclessia, the church alone.

While the Confession can be seen as enveloping all the great solas of the Reformation, it excelled in advancing the ‘forgotten sola’ of sola ecclessia, the church alone.

IX. The Confession was not intended to serve as a doctrinal storehouse, but to be communicated to every member of every church. The Larger and Shorter Catechisms were composed for this purpose. Thus, in writing its catechisms, the assembly kept an “eye to the Confession.” But this focus meant more than replicating content; the catechisms effectively conveyed the purposes of the confession, for as the principles of faith, life, and the church were taught and memorized, they built unity in the one faith from the ground up.

[portraitsofsaints]

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

Doctor of the Church

313-386

Feast Day: March 18

Patronage: Czechoslovakia, Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem had an exceptional education and was ordained a Bishop of Jerusalem during the Arian heresy. He instructed neophytes in the Catechism, explaining the Orthodox Catholic theology; this doctrine is still valuable today. He was exiled twice because of Arian followers, but returned in 378 to find Jerusalem torn in heresy, schism, and was crime-ridden. He worked hard to return it to the faith. At the Council of Constantinople, he championed orthodoxy, clarified that Christ has the same nature as the Father, and used the word “Consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed.

Prints, plaques & holy cards available for purchase here: (website)

[embracing-the-ineffable]

The Wizard of Uz and Good Omens

Some interesting info about the Wizard / Land of Uz, partway through this sermon (tw if you follow the link, it begins with a very sad story):

It begins like this: "Once upon a time there was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job." "Once upon a time" it begins. This tips us off that what follows is a fairy tale. .... Unbeknownst to Job however, his world is about to come crashing down around his ears. His livelihood is destroyed, all his beautiful sons and daughters are killed, and even Job himself is stricken with a horrible skin disease.

This trouble is the device which sets the plot in motion because we are left to wonder how this pious man will react. What will be the human response to all this misery? There are at least three responses to the problem of evil in the Book of Job.

Job's wife just wants to give up on God. She tells her husband “Curse God and die!" Her solution to the problem of pain is No Theology, or A-theology.

Job’s friends come to help but all they can give Job are the hackneyed bromides of traditional theology—the theology of the academy. All they can give him are Calvin's Institutes and Luther's Catechism and Barth's Dogmatics, but the theology of the academy doesn't work when you're standing next to an open grave and what you really need is Valium to kill the grief and morphine to kill the pain. The friends’ response is Book Theology.

The third response to evil is that of Job himself. He refuses to curse God and die. He knows there's a God. He has always believed in God and he's not going to stop now. "Naked came I from my mother's womb” he says “and naked shall I return. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

Job comes up with—what shall I call it?—a Lived Theology perhaps, or a Protest Theology. Job decides to hang onto God for dear life even if it means he will hang, period."

Though he slay me, yet shall I trust him," says the King James version of Job 13:15.

So, Aziraphale has something in common with Job, that unwavering faith in God, even if heaven and the angels are a mess. And Crowley might have something in common with Job's wife Sitis...

But it continues!

Augustine called her (Sitis) adiutrix diaboli, Satan's Secretary, or Assistant to the Diabolical One. Calvin used pretty much the same words when he called her the organum Satanae, the instrument of Satan.

And I suppose Augustine and Calvin were pretty much on target with their remarks, because after all she was trying to get her husband to do exactly what Satan wanted him to do���curse God and die. In one sense, she really was Satan’s assistant, or Satan’s instrument.

For Sidites, Job's unshakeable reverence for God is equivalent to an irreverence for the sacred lives of her children. She says to herself, "If Job can still love God after what God did to my children, he couldn't possibly have loved my children."

Or, if this is a metaphor for Crowley, he's perhaps thinking, "If Aziraphale can still love God and return to heaven after what they did to me, and tried to do to us, and tried to do to humanity, he couldn't possibly love me or us or humanity they way I thought he might..." ("Tell me you said no.")

Then, it continues! We learn that Satan is God's servant, and known as The Satan, and because Satan doesn't have any independent will of power outside of God's, the bet and Job's punishment came from God. We learn that Bildad is one of Job's friends. There's a quote, "sometimes, we discover our friends when we lose our God."

And there's another friend, Elihu, about whom the author says, "What Elihu gets right is the need for God’s gift of friendship. Not a friend to convince you you are wrong, but a one in a million friend, an angel, or advocate who will intervene on your behalf, to save you from the depths, who brings you back from the brink. Do you know that friend who believes you and will stand by you through anything?" And that part concludes with, "This is the mystery. Multiple things can be true at the same time: God is good. Suffering is real. It might teach us something. It might not. But a good friend, who believes us, who loves us, who shows up no matter what will make all the difference. May we know that friend. May we be that friend."

Further parts go on to explain the seemingly inexplicable ramblings of God from the show about whales and whatnot; She's trying to make a point about the vastness of the universe and how it's beautiful but not FOR people, it's meant to be beautiful and dramatic but not safe.

I like knowing the story that inspired parts of the Job minisode, and thinking about how those parallels might play out in season three. I hope you enjoy it, too!