FunDUHmentalists Considered as Not Christians

It occurred to me a while ago while I was musing that Fundies (the dumb end, at least), do not really believe that Jesus is God.

Sola Scriptura (Bible Only) has dragged them mumbling and gibbering out of Christianity and into the theological weeds planted by the Marcionites in the 1st & 2nd Centuries. The New Testament, after all, nowhere says explicitly -- in just those words -- "Jesus is God", nor does Jesus say "I am God" -- explicitly.

Doubting Thomas says "My Lord and my God" -- Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" -- and the Jews understood exactly what he meant, and were going to stone him -- but that's not quite "I am God", as the various brands of Arians gleefully point out. The FunDUHmentalist then says:

"If'n it ain't in the Bah-bul, whur ah kin read an' un'erstan' it real plain, ah don' gotta bee-leev it!"

Sola Scriptura also presupposes not only Lowest Common Denominator (i.e. stupidest) sorts of interpretation, but also the individual chaos we see in Protestant theology -- as Martin Luther observed, "...every milkmaid will be interpreting scripture."

At best, Fundies seem to see Jesus as a good ol' boy:

"When ah git t' heaven (an' it's a shure thang, 'cause ah'm all-ready Saved"), me 'n' Jesus is gonna kick back and enjoy some brews."

At worst, they seem to consider Jesus as a Salvation Vending Machine -- you drop in your 4 spiritual quarters:

"Ah tayk Jheez-zay-yus (at least 3 syllables) Kee-rayhst as mah Low-urd an' Save-yur!"

. . . an Clink, Rumble, Thunk-a-thunk, Ker-CHUNK!, out comes a can of Salvation Brew. Pop the top, and chug it down:

"Ahhhh -- thet's gooood -- 'n' lasts fur-ever, too!"

(Except that it doesn't -- the next time he runs into a spell-binding wowser of a preacher, he'll be convinced that the last time really didn' take, and do it all over again -- like Fundy baptism.)

If Jesus isn't God, who and what is left? The God of the Old Testament, of course -- usually shorn of his fatherly and loving aspects -- a vast, thundering Presence, engaged in scaring the goo out of all & sundry, like every Bible-bashing preacher contaminated with Calvinism loves to do.

The other side of Sola Scriptura is Bible-Worship -- Bibliolatry. Once you give up worshipping Jesus, the only thing you have left is the Bible. Not only is the Bible itself (paper and ink) sacred, but every verse in it is separately sacred, and to be used to prove how sacred the Bible is. Can anyone say: "Circular reasoning"?).

Bibliolatry also resuscitates all 620+ Commandments of the Jewish Law. These no-longer-Christians have turned themselves into the very Judaizers who St. Paul contended with. They also set themselves above the Apostles, whom we see deciding in Acts 15 that Christians need not be bound by that Law. Makes one wonder just who this "Lord and Master" they invoke is!

The titles "Lord" and "Master", nowadays, are mostly used in BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism) games. Other than in Fundamentalism, they have only very tenuous meaning. The very tenuousness may indeed explain their attractiveness to Fundies -- the idea that you can get to heaven by repeating a short and meaningless phrase is awful tempting. When the Stupid Do Theology, Theology is Reduced to Bumper Stickers.

Calvinists bray about a "sovereign God". The intersection of the meanings of "sovereign". "lord", and "master" are all in _COMPULSION_ -- the right and ability to compel the obedience and agreement of the subject person, over-ruling and over-whelming their personal will.

Now, there is no question that Jesus _CAN_ over-ride individual will -- He is the one by whom and through whom all things came to be (who do you think throws the switch when the Father says: "Let there be light!"?) We see Him and His Father in both the Old and New Testaments, constantly _ASKING_ that we voluntarily turn to Him. From the cries of Jeremiah in the OT ("Turn, O Israel, from evil-doing..."), to the heroic opening of herself by the girl Mary ("Be it done to me according to Your will") -- we see that our free will is central to our salvation. Not Fear and Compulsion; Love and reaching out.

The point is that God wants us to turn willingly and lovingly to Him, as He reaches out lovingly and willingly to us. The cold and capricious sadist who is the Calvinist god is not the loving Father Jesus speaks of.

Fundies are quick to quote John 3:16 -- "God so loved the world, that He sent his beloved son into the world to save sinners."), but they seem to miss that little word, "love". It's as if Jesus is nothing but a Salvation Vending Machine -- put in your quarters, and get your can of Salvation -- and that's it.

The Nicene Creed says of Jesus: "...one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made." -- this from 1200 years before Protestantism was invented.

The Gospel of John begins: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [. . .] 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not."

These are much grander conceptions than a Salvation Vending Machine. He is the SON, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is He "By Whom, and Through Whom, and In Whom we live and move and have our being."

Bibliolators know Him not; the Babdist who said 'Creeds interfere in the relationship between the individual and God" knew Him not.

Bibliolatry substitutes "Bible" for "Jesus" -- and they seem to interpret John 1:1 as: "In the Beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God." (The Bible being the "Word of God" of course.) This goes right along with the dementia of the fringe crazies (KJV Only) who think that the only _REAL_ bible fell from heaven into King James' lap, all perfectly typeset and bound.

Another excrescence of bibliolatry is the idea that anyone who can quote the Bible is a Good Guy(tm) and a REAL CHRISTIAN (tm), despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now Mohammedans (clearly not Christian), Jehovah's Witnesses (a mind-control cult who outright deny Jesus' divinity), and Seventh Day Adventists (who ignore Jesus in favor of Ellen G. White, and practice increasingly bizarre "prophecies") all quote the Bible -- and as the saying goes "The Devil can quote Scripture to his own ends."

Without any authority other than their own imaginations, and without the leaven of a critical education (or any at all), FunDUHmentalists are extremely reluctant to "judge" and confront even blatant blasphemy, much less subtle and debilitating heresy.

It is clear, then, that much of the non-Christian content of FunDUHmentalism is due to the lack of education in what the Church has and does teach. Whether this lack is genetic (i.e. those incapable of learning better fall into it), the result of human laziness, or there are darker forces (the Devil) behind them -- is not clear.

(An apology, by the way, to well-educated Fun_DA_mentalists who have learned -- and do -- the Work of the Lord, and who understand some of the depth of what the church means by "God of God, Light from Light, Very God from Very god" -- with them, I have no issues.)

Brown-Shirt "Bishop"

Mr. Richard Williamson, the neo-Nazi SSPX bishop, is a creep and an arrogant whiner. But give the Pope and the Curia a break -- they're denouncing his ideas and his mouth.

On January 28th, Papa Ratzi "... discussed his trips to the former concentration camp at Auschwitz and the images of 'the heinous slaughter of millions of Jews, the innocent victims of a blind racial and religious hatred.'" -- quote from CNN.

Also, "... [t]he Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has said Williamson will not be allowed to perform priestly functions if he does not recant." Another CNN quote.

What this means is that Mr. Brown-Shirt Williamson is in layman's status in the Roman Catholic Church until he forswears Nazism. We will see if he can bring himself to be obedient to the Pope's order, or if he will prefer his superbia and schismatic status -- being his own "pope" in defiance of Rome.

Howling Hypocrisy

Just lately the "major media" and the Federal Persecuting Attorneys have been howling about what an outrage it is that Stumblin' Rod Blagojevich used the power of his office to enrich himself & friends.

Pish, Tush, and Pshaw!

As an ex_Chicagoan, I have always known that the above is exactly what politics is all about -- especially _CHICAGO_ politics. In the 19th Century, "Hinky-Dink" and "Bathouse John" delivered votes, and collected graft; Double-Chin Dick Daley put JFK in the White House by double-counting votes in Graceland, Rosehill & Bohemian.

Blagojevich's major sin was being so stupid that he violated the 11th Commandment:

"Thou shalt not get caught."


========================


Now, I rather approve of anti-graft laws -- we need to level the playing field just a bit, and weed out the obviously incompetent, but I refuse to get indignant and spout specious pieties.

De "N" Card Don Wuk No Mo

WHITE GUILT IS DEAD

By Tom Adkins


Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism.. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader.. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I'm feeling a little uppity, if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO.. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's “God Damn America , Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those black studies programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, ¦pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.

And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watching butt on the couch and complain Da Man is keeping me down, allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.

In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!



So, listen carefully Wham!!!

That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.

Tom Adkins is the publisher of CommonConservative.com

610-888-7970

======================

What Tom said!

"Malefactors of Great Wealth"

It has been just about a century since Teddy Roosevelt coined that phrase:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=216341

. . . and they're at it again. This time they want thee & me & everybody else to cough up $2,300 or so each, to save their gold-plated behinds from the consequences of their own risky stupidity. As of today (29 Sep 2008), thee & me & everybody else has been telling their Congresscritters exactly what they think of that bit of highway robbery.

For once, Congress seems to be listening, and the House trashed the bill. If they take it up & pass it, it will just verify Mark Twain's cynical remark:

"The U.S. has the best Congress money can buy."

Keep on kickin' your Congressdonkey on the subject.

"I" vs. "We" Believe

My friend +Jim Balija, says in his recent e-Newsletter

"As I presided at liturgy recently with the community at Holy Trinity I was reflected on how and what we did in reciting the Creed together. As a group I was struck by the fact that we seemed to 'race through it' rather than reflect on what it was we were confessing as our beliefs."

In a way, I can relate to that -- as text, the Nicene Creed is pretty dry. In my Liturgy http://am-cath.org/GregLit.html, I combat that with a few bits of stagecraft:


First, we say "_I_ Believe" -- making it personal -- and I punch the "I" in my delivery. And yes, all you "Spirit of Vatican II" types, I do know that "We" is in the Conciliar documents, but the whole Church, East and West, used "I" ("Credo" in Latin) in the Liturgy from about AD 1000 onwards. I still do.

My problem with "we" is that it allows language-lawyering about belief. "I believe this part about Jesus, Suzy over there believes the part about the Holy Spirit, and George, in the back, believes the part about the Church." (I.e. We don't necessarily agree about the rest.)

"We" is descriptive -- "I" is intimately prescriptive.


Second, some callisthenics in the middle of the Creed, to break up the otherwise dry recitation:

"...For us men, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven;

{Here, we kneel in reverence for the Lord's Incarnation}

By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary; and Became Man. For our sake, He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered, died, and was buried.

{A moment's silence, then all rise}

And on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures..."

The Roman Liturgy prescribes a bob-and-dip genuflection at "..and Became Man...", but I extended it in both directions for dramatic effect. I bow my head during the silence, count 5 or so heartbeats, then rise up and mime the Ascension by raising my arms to heaven.


Finally, I lead the recitation in a measured and formal tone and cadence -- I never allow it to become a rattle or a race to see how quickly "we" can finish. The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is the central statement of the Christian Faith -- enunciated as we came out of the Catacombs into the daylight of the Roman world, and repeated for emphasis regularly since. Who does not believe the Creed in its entirety is not Christian.

The Creed is also the high point -- the culmination -- of the Liturgy of the Word, where we announce out unity of belief before entering into the Sacred Sacrifice which is the true heart & glory of the Mass.

+Sam'l B.

Home To Rome?

Old Catholic Union with Rome.

Necessary Steps from the Old Catholic Perspective.

When explaining to Roman Catholics about Old Catholicism. I frequently get the question: "Why don't you come home to Rome?", in one form or another. I reply that there are political reasons, rather than theological ones, and go on from there, as the questioner's interest and patience allow me.

My Great & Good Friend, Jeff Duntemann, keeps encouraging me to write on the subject (as I keep encouraging him to write about his expertise). I recently wrote a couple of pieces about excommunication and Roman Catholic Canon Law, so this subject seemed to follow on naturally.

The question of Old Catholic reunion with Rome involves a great deal of history (and no little politics), going back to Apostolic times. I will try to lay it out in as clear and sequential manner as I can.

All power and authority flow from Jesus Christ, of course, and in Matt 16:19, He said: “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay-Rheims English Translation, ca. 1585) In a slightly different context, he also gives them wide latitude: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23, D.-R.)

The Apostles obviously understood this grant of authority and power literally, since, in Acts 15 (describing what is sometimes called the First Council in Jerusalem) they absolve Gentile converts from the burden of observing all of the Jewish Law. Think about it – a bunch of low-class Galilean fishermen and their buddies, nullifying the Law and the Prophets. No wonder the Rabbinical schools were upset at them.

Looking at the process described in Acts 15, we see the pattern of Church legislation established: The Apostles (and/or their successors, the Bishops) meeting in groups, to discuss, pray about, and act on issuing legislation for the running of the Church. Soon after the Council in Jerusalem, we fell under the lash of Roman persecutions, and there were local synods in times when pressure let off, but no General Councils until after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D.

Starting with the First Ecumenical Council -- held in Nicea in 325 A.D. -- we see a clear pattern of Conciliar legislation, both in internal, procedural matters, and in matters of Faith and Morals. Nicea both condemns the Arian heresy, and gives instructions on how clergy are to behave in the world.

Six more Ecumenical Councils are recognized by both East and West, ending with 2nd Nicea, in 792 A.D. Since that time, the political and cultural differences between East and West have prevented the convening of a truly Ecumenical Council -- all "Councils" since then have been, essentially, local Synods.

The basic reason behind the schism between Rome and Utrecht (we Old Catholics are descended from the Archbishops of Utrecht, in the Netherlands) lies in Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:

"CANON II.

THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian (Asia Minor -- modern Turkey) Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."

Notice especially: "... the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province...". and "... bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches..." Not to put too fine a point on it, no bishop, however grand, has the right or power to interfere in the affairs of another bishop's diocese.

All bishops were and are not entirely equal, however. Bishops were appointed for particular regions, which corresponded to the subdivisions of the Roman Empire called -- SURPRISE! -- dioceses! The bishop of the largest town in the vicinity, which would be the headquarters of the next larger imperial subdivision -- the Province -- would serve as the chairman of the bishops meeting in synod, and would generally oversee matters -- but not interfere directly. These "city bishops" or "Provincials" came to be called "Metropolitans" in the East, and "Archbishops" in the West.

Over and above the Metropolitan Sees, several historical Sees became important, both for their association with certain Apostles, and because of their political importance in the Empire. In order of foundation, they are: Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.

Interestingly, St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, and the Bishops of Antioch count their Apostolic Succession from him. Also interestingly, the first Bishop/Patriarch of Alexandria was St. Mark the Evangelist, who was Peter's secretary -- so Alexandria's Apostolic Succession is from Peter, too. Constantinople claims Andrew, Peter's brother, as the founder of the See, but some suspect it was founded out of Antioch. Jerusalem was definitely re-founded out of Antioch, when Jews and Christians were allowed back in after the Emperor Hadrian's destruction of the city in 135 AD.

The archbishops of these important Metropolitan Sees became known as Patriarchs, and influenced the organization and liturgy in the areas where they held sway. Note that 4 of the 5 historical Patriarchates are in the Greek-speaking East, and only 1 in the Latin-Speaking West.

There would have been another -- Carthage -- serving the grain-growing provinces in North Africa from Cyrene westward to the Gates of Hercules (Gibraltar), but it was successively destroyed by the Vandals (430 AD), the Byzantines (under Belisarius, 533 AD), and the Muslims (695 AD), and so did not develop into a Patriarchate.

Rome, among the Patriarchates, was (and still is) the "First among equals" -- first in honor and first in precedence, since both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred there. But after the fall of Italy to the Ostrogoths in the 400s, Rome lost intimate contact with her 4 sisters in the East. They spoke Greek -- Rome, increasingly, no longer did. In the 400s, the Liturgy in the West came to be said in Latin, not the former Greek. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) was a master of Latin oratory -- but had no Greek.

With the fall of the Western Empire, the Papacy and the Roman Curia became the only organized entity larger than a city-state, and the focus of Western Christians' hopes and dreams. Popes had enough clout & charisma to talk barbarian chieftains out of sacking Rome itself.

Philip Shaff, in "Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume
I. The History of Creeds.", records that:

"Gregory I., or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the first of the mediaeval Popes (590-604), stoutly protested against the assumption of the title Oecumenical or universal Bishop on the part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this whole title and claim as blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal, while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would rather call himself 'the servant of the servants of God,'"

Gregory's successors, however, alone in their dominant position in the West, and without the criticism and communion with other Patriarchs, continued to assert more and more thoroughly Imperial claims toward other churches, culminating with Pius IX's self-proclamation of Dogmatic Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction.

In Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Documents of Vatican I, Pius IX declares:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

In the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law, it says:

"Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely."

And:

"Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."

See a pattern?

THIS is what separates us Old Catholics from Rome -- as it separates the Orthodox.

And THIS is what will have to change before we consider re-uniting with Rome.

I am necessarily not holding my breath.

===================

What would I like to see, instead of iron imperial dominion?

Well, first of all, I am an American of the generation that grew up right after WWII, and got a strong dose of Constitutional theory in Civics classes. I was much impressed with the idea of separation of powers -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Despite cynical remarks about the U.S. having the Best Congress money can buy, it has worked out fairly well.

"Power corrupts, they say, 'and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Pius IX is a glaring example of this dictum.

I would like to see Popes (and the other Patriarchs) subject to the review of truly Ecumenical Councils (comprised of delegates from both East and West). I would like to see a formal structure of an independent Judiciary. I would like to see mandatory Civil Audits (according to professional standards of best practices) of Church finances and properties at all levels. I would like to see mandatory inclusion of the laity in decision-making about mundane affairs.

I would like to see Pastors (and Bishops; and Metropolitans; and Patriarchs; and Popes) be men of religion -- spending their time on Teaching and the Sacraments, not fund-raising and administrivia. Modern Generals are responsible for the operation of their units, but they have well-ordered Staffs to handle the details of implementation.

I would like to see the Bishop of Rome, the First Among Equals, speak TRULY infallibly, as the spokesman for the Whole Church, in Council Assembled.

+Samuel B. Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(Waving the Black Flag of Anarchy
under the Noses of the Roman Curia)