Christmas morning

I grew up in the USA, that means for me, Christmas has always been on December 25th, or rather December 25th on the Gregorian calendar. I believe I am going to celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7th(of the new year), that would be December 25th of the Julian calendar. This screws up a lot of stuff and it does not mean that I intend to correct everyone that wishes me a merry Christmas or deny all presents until Jan. 7th. My Church, in the temporal sense, celebrates the nativity of Christ on Jan. 7th. I am not a member yet, nor have I been baptized, but I feel right there and I feel proud to celebrate Christ's life, teachings, resurrection and ascension in that community. I feel at home there and I feel like this is the Church I have always searched for. I had glimpses of this Church(the eternal one), in the Bible, in truly blessed services, in reading about the early Church. I feel proud to celebrate Christ at the same time as those who have gone before me.

On another note, I just watched the midnight mass televised from St. Peter's basilica. I enjoyed it, though I must admit that I didn't feel enthralled with it the way I am with services at Holy Resurrection. I really feel like while watching on TV might be nice, it does not substitute for being in service. God flows through people and He desires that we would interact with others. I also thought as I watched the service, about the office of the Pope. I heard the narrator refer to Peter as the "Prince of the Apostles". I feel like the hierarchy of the Catholic church is not very Christian. I see no evidence in the Gospels that Peter was in authority over the other Apostles, but that seems to be what Catholicism claims. Peter also was not the most prolific of the Apostles. Paul clearly wrote much more and his credentials are given to him post resurrection. The papal claim seems to be something which has been generated through historical happenstance, not divine appointment. In Orthodox history it was common to defer to the Church in Rome not because of Peter's authority but because it was the seat of the empire. When the seat of the empire moved to Constantinople that deference was also shifted. In fact, there were decrees that Rome was where the emperor was, so if the emperor was in Constantinople then that was Rome. It would seem that it serves the Catholic West to assume Papal authority in order to legitimize the denigration of those Churches that believe that Church authority is centered in Christ, not the Pope, and that on earth we confer with other believers to make decisions about the Church and its actions. That process was in place long before the split and it generated such revered treasures as the Nicean Creed and the Doctrine of the Trinity. It was the opinion of the united Church that while one mans hand might be flawed, a synod of the Holy Apostolic Church was infallible. So as I watch Pope Benedict escort the baby Jesus to his place in the crib scene, I watch him be treated like a pop star. Heads of state, nuns, preists, random people, throwing there arms out to touch him. I see him celebrated as an Icon of the One True God, and I think it is wrong. Many of these people celebrate this man, not what he professes. I think Peter would find that sort of adoration apalling and with zeal he would reject the people who would fawn over him so that he could direct them towards Christ. Christ humbled Peter because Peter believed he was best, and Christ showed him that every man can fail, every man hides. However, with Christ's Spirit inside him, he came to profess the gospel of the Lord, that God became Man so that man, lost in the world could be turned toward God and God might perfect humanity in the way he originally intended. Perhaps our dear Pope was tired, but I think it would have been appropriate for him to stop and yell at the crowd something like "Why do you look at me, Why? You are hear to seek God, turn your eyes inward." I might just ask too much.