I look forward to making some kind of effigy of 2022 and setting it on fire on December 31.
Things have steadified, to coin a term. My son's truck was stolen last month and then recovered, largely intact.
So, crime is at the top of my ballot next Tuesday, and my redistricted neighborhood is surprisingly competitive for once. Though, truth to tell, I rather liked Andy Levin, who was an old-school labor Democrat, albeit one who had to mouth the identitarian pieties which have consumed his party.
Anyhoo, that's obscenely-wealthy Oakland County's loss now. As for the GOP, it has not missed the chance to miss the chance to select good candidates for the local ballot--one or maybe two exceptions aside.
I'll try to avoid making honking noises at the ballot station.
We are trying to stay ahead of inflation, which is 1B on my ballot. That's becoming tougher, though we soldier through. I hope and pray the Russo-Ukrainian War does not go global, though I have little confidence in the nuclear-armed leadership on either side of the fight. Putin is atrocious, but history teaches that the Russians can and will find someone worse in the aftermath of a military catastrophe.
Spiritually, I find myself (unofficially) in the Melkite camp. The late Bishop Elias Zoghby asserted that the papacy of the first millennium--and not an iota more--was something both Catholics and Orthodox could buy into. More Catholics than Orthodox did, but such are the times.
The Vatican I papacy, as codified in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law, is the platonic ideal of overreach. "Hypertrophy," to borrow the exercise term. Or "single point of failure," to use an engineering phrase. In any event, magisterial statements like this are, flatly, bonkers:
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
How about no? As in "No, the Faith is not the wet clay of the reigning pontiff?"
But canon law and the popes themselves say otherwise, so here we are.
And it won't be fixed by a better guy as pope--not that such would be difficult, of course.
By now it should be clear that the problem is larger than a manifestly-unfit CEO. Rather, it resides in an autocratic system that requires saintly self-abnegation to work--making it not a good system. In human terms, what your powers allow you to do will, in the absence of countervailing forces, inevitably trump what custom says you should do. Yes, it is making me take a hard look at Orthodoxy--or at least the less-caesaropapist versions.
Anyway, I hope you and yours have safe and blessed holiday seasons. Prayers, please, for dear friends who have a loved one who has been arrested for murder. I remember the young man as a boy, and this is beyond a nightmare.
This may be of interest to you.
ReplyDeleteThough yes, I too have noticed it seems to be an issue with Catholicism where if a bad idea or faulty concept gets lodged into "the system," it is nigh impossible to ever get it out.
The late, great Fr. Hopko is correct. The onus is on Rome. Good luck convincing those with absolute power to renounce it.
DeleteThe finest clergyman I have ever known was an ancient Melkite priest, Archimandrite Julian Eliane. (1917-2010).
ReplyDeleteKeeping you in mind, Dale.
Thank you, Art. Blessings to you and yours, too.
DeleteI concur with your judgment that the post-Vatican I papacy has placed altogether too much autocratic power in the pope’s hands. The keys to the Kingdom must mean something more mysterious than “I am the boss of all bosses.” I wish I had an idea or two as to how this might be corrected, but I don’t. I can’t bring myself to think of joining the schismatics, however. I don’t think bad councils or bad popes invalidate the “upon this rock” promise, so here we are. Our disadvantage is that we have such short lives while God plays the original long game, thus we likely will not see this resolved while we live on this side of the veil.
ReplyDeleteThe late, great, Louis Bouyer argued in "The Church of God" that C and O could not consider themselves fully separated. He said that the Western Councils could not be fully ecumenical because the East did not participate. Thus, they are general councils which would have to be ratified by a truly ecumenical one, which is how councils like Carthage and Second Orange obtained universal recognition, all or in part.
DeleteThat sounds like a sane way out, but it would require a remarkable act of kenosis by Rome, which does not come easily to the See, he says with considerable understatement.
Hi -- I saw on twitter you asked about books on Orthodoxy. When I was considering that move 20 years ago I thought the most helpful were 1. Anon., Orthodox Spirituality: An Outline of the Orthodox Ascetical and Mystical Tradition; 2. Ware, The Orthodox Church; and 3. Coniaris, 80 Talks for Orthodox Young People (I still crib from it for teaching my CCD class). YMMV. Pray for me.
ReplyDeleteThank you, and be assured of my prayers.
DeleteThere are ways out. My preferred one is that of the late Fr. Louis Bouyer, who argued that there have been no truly ecumenical councils since II Nicaea.
ReplyDeleteThus, everything after would be a Western council. It certainly has the merit of helping to create the following counterfactual: how much different would each council have sounded if the East had participated in full force at every one?
It's December now. Things any better?
ReplyDeleteThings have settled a bit. Healing in the family, and growing, if not settled, clarity for me in matters religious. Thank you for asking.
DeletePrayers for both are still more than welcome.
Praying you have a blessed and wonderful Christmas, Dale. May the new year bring better times for ya.
DeleteHere you go, Dale. Thought you could use a laugh.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny--thank you! Perturabo was LOL, in fact. "Ever the petulant man-child," to quote another bit of fan-created genius.
Delete