I'M STILL IN THE GRIP OF GRACE

What if God was not in my life? This is a question that I have been bugging myself with for a while. What would happen to me if I were to take God out of my life and out of my heart, what will remain? Who will I be?

The chances are very likely I would be an asshole. I would succome to the desires of the world. I would seek solace in alcohol. I would have experimented with drugs and probably LSD or X at a rave scene. I would have lost my virginity at age 17. I would have been loose with my tongue and quick in my temper. I would have been a mess but it didn't care since I would have had my middle finger up.

Now is this an exaggeration? Perhaps. But it's not far from the truth. Without God, I would have done things my own way and I wouldn't have cared. I would have treated people like shit and I wouldn't matter in the least. In other words (for those who may know me) I wouldn't be the sensitive soul that I am.

I will never understand the nature of God's grace but I do know when it works (and believe me it does). And believe me, this world will be a better place when more people trust in the Lord. Lives will be better. Perceptions will be clean. People would associate with others better. Peace will be realized (if not external, definitely internal). This is what I'm grateful for and will be always.

Thank you God.

+

OBSESSION WITH THE FLESH

Modern culture and I have a problem.

One of the many dogmas of the current secular scene is that sex is a basic human right and it is absolutely essential for the human race. Now within the sacrament of marriage, that's perfectly fine. But then there are additions that make it further nauseating: homosexuality, pedophila, bestiality, promiscuity, prositution, premartial sex, extramartial sex, pornography, sado-masochism, masturbation...

First off, why attack them? This culture is obsessed with the pleasures of the flesh. It insists that no matter how it's done, the end is always satisfaction for somebody (well one of them at least). No one should be denied that kind of satisfaction now should they? So we allow the children to be molested, the teenagers to go too far without really understanding the consequences (well... they do fortunately but unfortunately it leads to other problems), marraiges to fall apart, lives to be ridden with all matter of ills, minds to be distorted, time to be wasted, families to be divided, trust to be destroyed, characters scarred... all for the sake of seeking to obey every single whim.

Now out of all the things mentioned, why homosexuality? Isn't possible for a homosexual relationship to be abstinent? Yes. But then again, it wouldn't be homosexual would it? If it's abstinent, then it's simply a friendship with heightened emotions. It becomes homosexual when sex is involved and that's what I object to. I object to the idea that you are willing to go against the natural order because you have a whim to do so. So what? I may have had a whim to kill someone, rob someone or screw someone (in a multitude of ways) as well. But I never did it. Self-control my friend. Self-control.

Not everything is about sex. Even within marriage where it is sanctioned, sex is not the driving factor or the important thing. Sex is only part of the story. I want my wife to be a lover, but I also want her to be a friend, a mother, a compatriot and a second-hand. There will be love but there are other forms to explore.

After all, Christ's human will knew that the divine will is boss.

+

ROME IS THE SHEPHERD OF THE WORLD, NOT THE KING

Right now, I have a somewhat love-hate relationship with the See of Rome. I love the See for its devotion and commitment to the Truth and thriving for love. I also hate it for its prideful side and its reliance on certain theology.

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church were once unifed and they worked together for the advancement of the Faith, the perservation of the Truth and the encouragement of Love. The Patriarch of Rome was recognized as the "first among equals" and that first was a primacy of honor and in some cases a means of having the final word on a major theological dispute. The Eastern Sees recognized and even honored that duty and its chair. Sure there may have been differences in approach - the East tends to be more philosophical and mystical whilst the West more legalistic and logical - but they knew that the different members worked together for the Bride of Christ.

This was fine until around the 8th century.

Without going into too much detail, the West and the East started to drift apart due to lack of communication and everyone acting independently. Now I will say that both sides have their share of contributions to the Great Schism. However I will say that after that, Rome continued to act without the rest of the Eastern Sees. The primacy of honor turned into universal jurisdiction. His ability to have the final say on doctrinal disputes turned into papal infalliability, meaning that anything that the Pope says in regards to faith and morals is correct. Being catholic meant being under a visible hierarchy and not so much an invisible catholicism where we are uniform in doctrine. And based on an adherance to St. Augustine (another person of whom I have a love-hate relationship) and his theology and an over-emphasis on the clergy, you create a feminine gap. That is filled with the Theotokos++.

Now why do I have this somewhat animosity towards the Holy See? Well, pride is the main reason. Rome took its role and expounded it to a greater proportion. Thinking that it can do a good job based on past experiences and praises, the result is an abandonment of the other Sees. And I'm not disputing the Pope's importance and its connection and succession from Peter. But Christ had eleven other people as well (well... more like ten since the other one made the choice not to take part). You need a leader (Peter) but you can't rule alone (much like the idea of the Trinity). Papal infalliability works in the context of not only the other bishops within his See but with the bishops outside as well, working together to realize the Truth. And as long as the majority of the laity really believes that the Pope is the end all, be all of teaching on earth, I will not be a part of it.

Now... do I absolutely despise Rome? No. I have met some great Catholics (and soon-to-be ones as well) for the past year or so. Roman Catholicism has improved somewhat after Vatican II (except now it's more like the Protestant West instead of the Orthodox East and the American dioceses have shot themselves in the foot for laxing the grip on canon law). In fact I even recite the Rosary with my newfound Catholic friends. I even like the current Pontiff (although his devotion to certain Marian appartions makes me raise an eyebrow in concern but thankfully the Holy Spirit hasn't spoken through the chair of Peter on them). And I do pray for the See whenever I can but I care for it.

In conclusion, I shall explain my title. The Patriarch of Rome with his primacy of honor should be a shepherd instead of a king. The clergy - no where they are affliated with - are also suppose to be shepherd. By shepherd meaning that they should have a clear idea on how to raise and maintain a flock comprised of somewhat individualistic creatures (I think that's why God loves the shepherd analogy... after all, that's why I think David was chosen to be king after Saul screwed up).

May God be with the sheep and the shepherds of Rome and the Eastern Sees. May we one day graze in the same fields together.

+