Elven Waybread is the Eucharist!

Last night in the midst of brushing my teeth before bed, I had an epiphany. "The elven waybread is the Eucharist!" I don't know where that even came from, as I was not even thinking about the Lord of the Rings. As a fan of the Lord of the Rings, I love to find little gems in the book that relate to the faith. Well, this is one I missed. It took becoming a Catholic to see it. But wow it fits so well! Galadriel even gives the "lembas" to them, which points us to the Blessed Virgin Mary who gives us Jesus in the Eucharist. They must only eat quite small pieces of the bread to become full, and the bread lasts and lasts on their journey. The bread also has special properties (if I remember correctly) where it's potency grows the more it is relied on as a food source. All these have obvious parallels to the receiving of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. Now I will go look online and type in "elven waybread Eucharist" into google and I am sure this has already been discovered by others. But I feel good that I got to have that "aha!" moment with this one. Very cool indeed. What an incredibly rich story the LOTR is!

Robert Sungenis on a rabbit trail

 On Tuesday, I was in attendance for a debate between Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. David Pence at the Twin Cities famous Argument of the Month Club meeting. It was loosely about the relationship between Church and science, but ended up being mainly about geocentrism. Unfortunately Dr. Pence was self admittedly a bit unprepared, so Sungenis handily won the debate. My main beef was that there was not enough emphasis on what to me was the ONLY issue: what MUST Catholics believe about cosmology, paleontology, etc? The questions at the end of the debate reflected an interest in the novel (to modern man at least) idea that the earth is motionless. I admit, it is interesting to talk about! You quikly realize how much you do not know about cosmology, and how many presuppositions and philosophical assumptions scientists make. For the sake of argument, I consider myself an agnostic on the whole helio/geo centrism issue, if only for the simple fact that I am just not a scientist and cannot defend either position on the basis of anything other than feelings and hunches. I did buy Robert Sungenis book Galileo was wrong, the Church was right from him at the debate, and plan to read it in much the same way I read a Brief History of Time by Hawking. It is interesting to try to wrap my feeble noodle around these cosmic mysteries. I read a post by Dave Armstrong which my friend and fellow parishioner Zeb pointed out. It was quite revealing and quite convincing. In a word, it is clear to me that Sungenis is trying to bind consciences where they should not be bound when it comes to geocentrism. Which as a recent convert is exactly what I want to get away from! I did not leave the "self-Papacy" of Protestantism behind to become Catholic and have some guy try to do the magisteriums job for it. Sungenis needs to show where the magisterium has made this a doctrine I must submit to and that it is a doctrine of faith or morals. He has not done that. It amazes me because his debate with James White on papal infallibility was so memorable. In that debate he made a great case that Pope Honorius did NOT infallibly teach heresy. Well, we all agree Honorius was certainly a heretic when it came to a doctrine of faith, so if we can dismiss Honorius, why can't we dismiss this one belief of the fathers and popes that defended geocentrism which is almost certainly not a matter of faith or morals and which they certainly did not teach infallibly? Sungenis seems to CLEARLY understand what makes a doctrine infallible and binding on the whole Church, yet he seems to ignore his own knowledge in this case. He also did not make the case that it matters to the extent he seems to think it does. So the fathers of the Church were unanimous in their geocentric belief and used scripture to back it up, OK fine. But using scripture does not make this a doctrine of faith or morals! I agree with Sungenis that many scientists cling to evolution and and perhaps heliocentrism because of a desire to deny their creator. But so what? That does not mean geocentrism is an issue of faith or morals. Scientists don't get to decide that (thank you God). The one good point Dr. Pence made in the debate a few times was that even in a heliocentric system, there are still many unexplainable scientific things that point to our unique situation in the cosmos and should point us to God. We do not need geocentrism to be awestruck at what we see in a telescope. Robert Sungenis is such an awsome apologist and debater and I am really disappointed that he has gone down this rabbit trail. What a waste of his talent as an apologist.

Age of Earth and Evolution

I read an article about the age of the earth on a site called "rapure ready" (don't ask) It was interesting. There are some great points I had never heard like the lake in Japan with 45,000 layers of yearly sediment. 2 things that I wish he would have addressed though. And I think these concerns touch on a certain cavalierness I have noticed among some Catholics to "swallow" whatever modern science throws at us and claim that the Bible is not to be interpreted litterally so therefore anything goes. Anything does not go, and these issues of the age of the earth and geocentrism do matter in how we view our faith. If evolution is proven beyond doubt, my faith will not be shaken, my reading of Genesis chapter 1 will need to change somewhat though. But that does not mean I will sit by and quietly nod my head at scientists like Steven J. Gould who posit simply ridiculous theories like punctuated equilibrium to prop up evolution. As christians, we have nothing to fear from science. But people like Gould filter their science through philosophical assumptions that they hold as dogma. Gould sees no transitional forms in the fosil record and makes a new theory to fit with his philosophy about the universe and its origins from chance and time. This is bad science and he should be called out by christians for it. If he turns out to be right, it is still bad science, because the philosophical assumptions behind it were bad. On to the article: 1. In the article, Todd Strandberg said: "The scriptural references to historical events are extremely brief. It would only take one unknown factor to explain that there may have been scores of millennial ages between the time of Adam and the present." To this I answer: No, there could not have been scores (a score is 25 I think) of millenia since Adam. Before him, perhaps, but not after. There is a record of geneologies in Genesis that are presented as solid historical fact and they allow for perhaps a couple dozen millenia if things are really really stretched. 6000yrs if taken at face value like Usher did. These geneologies are repeated in the New Testament, they have specific ages of the men, and there is zero reason to think they are "historical epic" (like Genesis ch. 1) style literature where time (24 hour days) is not nessesarily to be read literally. In fact, I will claim that their point is to root the salvation narrative in real human history by pointing to real men with real lifespans. These geneologies must be accepted as literal unless proven otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt. (ref: geneologies in Gen. 5 and Gen. 11) 2. Death before Adam. This is very important. If there are animals dying before Adam, this would make no sense theologically. If evolution is true, then the implication is there were humans (or an ape man who was 99.9% human) before Adam who died. Why would they die? Sin had not occured yet. This is a huge problem for theistic evolutionists. Animals and people being created with death as part of their nature is impossible. In my opinion, as Catholics, (and Christians in general) we need to have an attitude as follows: Our faith is not going to be shaken if evolution is proved or the earth is shown to be 999.67 trillon years old. But for goodness sake people, lets not jetisson our traditional beliefs on these issues at the first sign of some godless scientist with godless philosophical assumptions shows us his data and interprets that data for us. Lets have a bit of scepticism at these modern philosophers who see science as their religion, and themselves as it's interpretive magisterium.

I am Catholic

On Sunday, my wife, my four daughters and I were received into the Church. My wife and I received the gift of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation (something I could never achieve as a Pentecostal), and I received my first holy Communion. I was shaking like a leaf up there (literally) because of the importance of the occasion and what I knew was about to happen and was embarrassed for that, but when Father Dufner raised his hand to bless us before our confirmation I felt immediately and physically calmed down. I'm not saying it was supernatural or whatever, but it felt like it to me. Anyway that was strange and very cool. A strange salty liquid came from my eyes during the consecration which my wife later told me were tears. ;-) I pulled myself together until it was time to go forward to receive Christ. The amazing full choir started "let all mortal flesh keep silent" and I had to will my body to move like in a fog. One of those moments when time did really and actually slow down. I tried not to think too much about the gift I was receiving in the Eucharist because I thought I might not make it through. My two oldest girls who were in front of me got a blessing and walked the wrong way away from our pew and I didn't even notice! (my wife told me later) What an amazing thing to receive a gift like that! I thought I knew the way God loved us before... as in "A lot". Now I don't think I would dare try to explain the extent of it. Seeing His Body layed on an altar for me and then being invited to partake of His sacrifice was the most... sacred... thing I have ever experienced in my life. I am convinced that God's love can never be explained now. It can begin to be understood by participating in a mass, but words words will just fail. It as if every sermon on God's love I ever heard was saying "I just told you about God's love, now go to a mass and let Christ show you!" As I walked weakly back to my pew and knelt down I thought to myself that this is more than just me partaking of His sacrifice. I realized that what I was in the process of eating was going to become part of my body. (Me becoming part of His Body more properly I think) This thought drove home forcefully the idea that I was being set aside for the same sacrifice I had just witnessed, again, no words necessary, it was all there to witness. The sacrifice of the mass explains these things in what is said, but even more in what happens. Absolutely beautiful!

Merry Christmas!

May the miracle of the incarnation overwhelm you this Christmas. From David, Bridget, Annabel, Noel, Violet, and Penelope.

Being recieved into the Church Dec. 19

Holy Family Catholic Church, St. Louis Park, MN This December 19th, which is the fourth Sunday of Advent, I will be recieved into Christ's Church, the Catholic Church. My wife and I will both be confirmed as well. My wife Bridget is a revert so only needs confession and confirmation. I can't express my feelings about all of this properly. It is... sublime, but at the same time strange and frightening. My family is so very blessed and I thank God that He lifted the scales from our eyes to see His Church. In our meetings with our Priest, Fr. Thomas Dufner, he has often asked what questions I have for him, or pointing out some doctrine that is radically different from my Reformed past he will ask if I understand it. My reply has been "That is why I am here, I want it all". In our first meeting, he drew a picture of Luther's snow covered dunghill on a piece of paper, and gave a very good description of the crucial difference between my former religion and my new one. Is the dung (me) covered with snow (imputation) or is it changed into snow (infusion)? When the question came to Papal infallibility, I said "that is why I am here, bring it on!" I want whatever Christ has to offer, and therefore whatever his Church has, I want it! Our church is just an amazing place filled with very holy people. There will be plenty of oportunities for spiritual growth for us if we look to their example! I am reminded of Chesterton's three stages of conversion now that I am reaching the culmination of the third stage. The first is giving the Catholic Church a fair viewing, or just being objective with it. The second is a result of the first... being aware of the percieved falsehoods as well as the stunning truths of the faith, and being excited and amazed at the quantity and quality of the truths. The third I will just let Chesterton himself give: It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair. The man has exactly the same sense of having committed or compromised himself; of having been in a sense entrapped, even if he is glad to be entrapped. But for a considerable time he is not so much glad as simply terrified. It may be that this real psychological experience has been misunderstood by stupider people and is responsible for all that remains of the legend that Rome is a mere trap. But that legend misses the whole point of the psychology. It is not the Pope who has set the trap or the priests who have baited it. The whole point of the position is that the trap is simply the truth. The whole point is that the man himself has made his way towards the trap of truth, and not the trap that has run after the man. All steps except the last step he has taken eagerly on his own account, out of interest in the truth; and even the last step, or the last stage, only alarms him because it is so very true. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION BY G. K. CHESTERTON As I prepare to take that last step, the image comes to mind of the Jewish High Priest having a rope tied around his ankle when he went in to sprinkle the mercy seat with the blood of the lamb on the day of atonement. (the rope was to pull him out if he didn't uh-hum make it out). How much more sacred and profound an event I will participate in when I finally recieve the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. I might come to mass with a rope around my ankle. Any local Twin City readers can come and celebrate with us at the 9am mass on Dec. 19. Directions in the link under the picture above.

Turretin says: "It's all about conscience, dude."

(From my response to Matthew Schultz in the previous post:) Here is the quote from Francis Turretin again for reference. As you put it, he is referring someone who disagrees with the decisions of his local church authority: “...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284). Refering to my claim that sola Scriptura requires the right of the individual to identify the church You said: "As for the meat of the matter, it is unclear how this "right" is "required" given what you've said. Perhaps it is because your language is confusing given the stage of inquiry in your critique. To say someone has the right to "identify" the Church suggests a time before one has completed such an identification. Do you mean something like re-identify? Or, really, the right to break fellowship with the Church? Yes, both. Although for the Protestant I would put it completely in the "re-identify" category because of the need to identify based on "apostolicity". For the Catholic, with apostolic succession, it is nearly all the former "initial" type with a dash of the latter (keeping on the lookout for heretical bishops that break communion with Rome). I mean, the Turretin quote is really clear on this. He puts this "right" squarely in the hands of the individual and it certainly is required to be in his hands considering that adherents to sola S. disagree on the identity of the church. He comes out and says basically that if your conscience says leave, then leave. As far as I can tell Turretin makes my point for me. Perhaps I am not a good communicator here, because it does just seem very clear and non-controversial. And when you say "the right to break fellowship with the Church?" that is not at all what a Catholic or a Protestant would say. NO ONE would ever think they were doing so. They would think they were moving closer to the true church. This is precisely what Turretin is talking about when he says people should follow their conscience. He is not saying they should be able to in good conscience "leave the church". He is talking about the right to identify the church. I think Arius could fully agree with Turretin and give him a big high-five. I don't see how Turretin could then fault Arius in any way considering the subjectivity in his (Turretin's) statement. You said: "If so, I don't see how that's anything of an "honest" admission, or why it would "influence" your conversion, as if this is somehow damaging to sola Scriptura." I was referring to the Turretin quote, and it was influential, because it is a very clear, concise, and orthodox (for Reformed theology) description of the nuclear fallout of sola Scriptura. (Keep in mind my view of sola Scriptura as a Protestant has been that it leads to an objective identification of the one true church). Turretin is being "honest" in this sense: I don't think he is very exited about the prospect of people doing what he says they are able to do, namely to leave their church to follow their conscience in another branch of the "church". That is something no Protestant likes to think about, but it is necessary to think about it, and Turretin gets down to the "dirty diaper" of sola Scriptura when he points out the fact that the whole thing is totally subjective. The fact that you and Keith use this quote as somehow defending sola S. is something I just don't understand. It is exactly this subjectivity that pushes people like me to the banks of the Tiber. And as for the tu quoque, the initial "identification" of the Catholic Church is just simply an order of magnitude in difference from the subjective "identification" of the church one must by necessity make constantly as a Protestant. Is the Turretin quote damaging to sola Scriptura? No, I found it to be devastating to it. And I spent two days depressed and walking around like a zombie when I realized this. (also Calvin's "let them eat cake" statement where he says a synod of true bishops should be convened to decide matters... uh ok Calvin, how?) Peace, David Meyer

The Catholic Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

The following is Keith Mathison's definition of sola Scriptura.

"The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei."

I found it while reading here. Doesn't this sound a lot like what a Catholic would say about Scripture/Tradition? And if so, is not sola Scriptura just an emasculated Catholic doctrine? Especially if the term "sole source of revelation" is read as Scripture being materially sufficient. I mean, as far as I know Catholics don't deny that Scripture contains everything that Tradition contains and vise versa. I think a Catholic could (with proper qualification) say that at the end of the day the Scripture is his sole source of revelation. And Keith Mathison could (would!) say it as well (with proper qualification.) It is in the qualification that the subjectivity of the Protestant doctrine is revealed. The identity of the "church" is really the key here. Really what the meaty version of sola Scriptura (as opposed to solo Scriptura)is demanding is a subjective identification of what the church is. Of the three points in the statement, a Catholic only has to qualify #1. A Protestant must qualify all 3 and blush at the verbiage required for him to qualify #2 and #3.

1. Scripture is the sole source of revelation 2. it is to be interpreted in and by the church 3. it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei

For the Protestant, #2 is out the window. I mean "in and by" what church? What if I disagree with that "churches" interpretation? Subjective identification (by the individual Christian) of a "church" who will do the actual interpreting mentioned in #2 is critical to the Protestant doctrine. #3 just boils down to a sort of "Vincentian cannon" for the Protestant. Which boils down to a mere Christianity that has every interpretation under the sun. So my question put another way is this: Is it fair to say that (A.) the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura first and foremost requires the right of the individual Christian to identify the church, while (B.) the Catholic doctrine of sola Scriptura (If there could be such a thing) requires a church that explicitly rejects and reverses (A.)? So as Obi-Wan Kenobi said to Luke, sola Scriptura is "true... from a certain point of view." And my main point is that the doctrine as written is not bad, but dies the death of a thousand qualifications as a Protestant doctrine. Not so as a Catholic one. After all, there is a reason why the Scriptural cannon is closed for Catholics. Scripture is complete and sufficient. And of course it needs interpreting... no one denies this. I think there may be a place for a Catholic to sometimes say "yeah, I agree with sola Scriptura... IF it means..." Perhaps granting this "sola" of the reformation in the qualified way I suggest could be way to help Protestants see the faulty assumptions underlying their view of Scripture.

Childrearing advice

You might think hard liquor is a great way to soothe baby. But trust me, they develop a tolerance and soon will drink you out of house and home.

Chesterton on Abortion

"Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like."