EENS Monday: Lactantius (c.250 – c.325)

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Lactantius (c.250 – c.325) says:

"...But some, enticed by the prediction of false prophets, concerning whom both the true prophets and he himself had foretold, fell away from the knowledge of God, and left the true tradition. But all of these, ensnared by frauds of demons, which they ought to have foreseen and guarded against, by their carelessness lost the name and worship of God. For when they are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or Arians, or by any other name, they have ceased to be Christians, who have lost the name of Christ, and assumed human and external names. Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship.

This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation. No one ought to flatter himself with persevering strife. For the contest is respecting life and salvation, which, unless it is carefully and diligently kept in view, will be lost and extinguished. But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable."

Lactantius, (c.250 – c.325)

 Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 30

MBTI Personality Type Tests and Quiz

For a few months now I have been examining the four letter personality sorter called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). My INTJ friend from work got me into it. At first it is quite interesting, and even a little creepy how accurate it is. Then came the phase where it actually started to change my life in small ways. I don't want to get too sentimental (although I am an INFP, and we do sentimental better than anyone ;-) but understanding the 16 different types and how they see the world and relate to it and each other was simply mind blowing to me.

Here is a brief primer on the MBTI:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) is a self-report questionnaire designed to make Jung's theory of psychological types understandable and useful in everyday life. MBTI results describe valuable difference between normal, healthy people-difference that can be the source of much misunderstanding and miscommunication. The MBTI will help you identify your strengths and unique gifts. You can use the information to better understand yourself, your motivations, your strengths, and potential areas for growth. It will also help you to better understand and appreciate those who differ from you. Understanding MBTI type is self-affirming and enhances cooperation and productivity, plus it can be fun !!!

How we:


Get and use energy: Extraversion / Introversion (E/I - scale)
Gather & take in information: Sensing / iNtuition (S/N - scale)
Make decisions: Thinking / Feeling (T/F - scale)
Organize our lives: Judging / Perceiving (J/P - scale)

From Wikipedia:

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion). For instance:


ISTJ: introversion (I), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
ENFP: extraversion (E), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)


And so on for all 16 possible type combinations.

At first, when I took the test and my result came up as INFP, and when I read the description, I was a bit doubtful. Sometimes the descriptions can sound a bit like horoscopes, it is true. BUT, when all the horoscopey stuff is filtered, and you get down to what really distinguishes the type from the others, you will blush, laugh, and shake your head. When I read the following about my type, I blushed, my wife laughed, and I knew this system of determining personality types was spot on accurate. My emphasis:

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

The difference between sensing and intuition (S and N respectively) is enough to make anyone laugh. If you are and S, a "sensor", you will say to yourself "so that's why there have been these weird people in the shadows around me all these years." If you are an N, an Intuitive, you will say to yourself (with 25% of the population that are also Intuitives) "Thank God I am not insane! There are people like me out there!"

Before I say to much and possibly skew your results, take the test for yourself! Then you can examine the different types objectively.

Below, I will give free places on line to take the test. I recommend taking it from a couple sources if the percentages of your score are low. What I mean is this: When I score I-N-F-P, each letter receives a % of its intensity. For me, they are always above 60%, and on most of the tests they are in  the 80% range. So whenever I take the test the result is always a very solid INFP. If you score a low % on a letter or two, That is not bad, it just means you should take a few different tests and average them out to find to most accurate result.


Take the MBTI personality test!


I have sorted through lots of options for you. All the tests listed here are good, and free, but I will give you my preferred order.

1. Very short (1 min.) 24 word identification test from similarminds.com. This test is great because it is short and easy. Not much racking your brain or soul searching to find the answer, and it is super quick and accurate. Choose from a four point scale between two words such as “Tangible **** Conceptual”. Having taken all the MBTI tests on the site, I found the percentage results of this one to be surprisingly similar to the longer tests on the same website. Perhaps take this test first, then take a longer one later to compare the results.
2.  Normal length (6-12 min) yes or no test from humanmetrics.com. A statement such as “You are strongly touched by the stories about people's troubles.” With a YES or NO option. This test gives me slightly different percentages than the humanmetrics.com tests referenced above. The F and P in my type (INFP) are in the ~60% range instead of the low 80% range on similarminds.com. Overall I like this test the best because it forces a binary choice and is long enough to get a lot of questions in.
3. Short (3-5 min.) scaled word test from similarminds.com. A single word such as “Talkative” is given and you then choose from a 5 point scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate” with the middle point being “50% accurate”.
4. Normal length (5-10 min.) ~50 question test from similarminds.com. A statement such as “I am far more casual than orderly” is given and you then choose from a 5 point scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate” with the middle point being “50% accurate”.
5. Rate 40 questions 1-20, a & b) from 1 to 5, with a and b not totaling more than 5. From The Ancona Family.Havent taken this one yet. Looks a bit "NT" for my taste though. But the site is a good resource other than Keirsey.com. Also this site has great statistics (My charts use the data from this site).

Good links for further study:

http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

Keirsey.com has lots of articles specific to each type. It can be a bit too horoscope-ey at times, and is obviously made more for a business environment, but the info is interesting. I like how they group the types into 4 named subgroups also... SJ, SP, NF, NT.

The Ancona Family.
I am liking this site a lot. Great info, and a bit less horoscope-ey.

Once you get your type and read the description and have a laugh, and read a few articles on Keirsey about love life or family relations, you should look up some info on youtube about your type or someone you knows type. Here is a video of motivational posters of my type. My wife and I were rolling on the floor laughing at these videos. (She is an ISTJ, so we have lots of differences to enjoy!... vive la difference!)

Just google your four letter type and you will have a blast.

Stay tuned for another post with some nice graphics and charts with some very interesting stats on the types.

Teaser:
Nearly HALF of the population are SJ's! That's right, of the 16 possible types, only FOUR of the types make up half of the population! This means you are probably ARE an SJ, and if you are not, you are surrounded by them. When you are done with the test, don't forget to take this poll!

Enjoy!

Quizzes by Quibblo.com

SnapApp Quiz Apps

What do you see?

So I am scrolling through my blog feed this morning and notice this picture from Father Z's blog.

My initial reaction:
 "Why on earth does Fr. Z have a picture of a woman in a bikini on his blog? That doesnt seem like his style... uh oh wait... ha ha, wow I need another cup of coffee."

My fortune cookie should read "get your mind out of the gutter you idiot!"

Or better yet:

"if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Some aspects of being a man can be tedious.

Herchurch?

In a post aptly titled Paganianity on the awsome blog Bad Vestments, there is a sad photo. From the website of "Herchurch" comes this:

The Christian-Lutheran Feminist/Womanist/Mujerista Movements exist to celebrate the feminine persona of God/dess and dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice.

Yeah, makes me want to vomit as well. Oh and the thing she is holding is called a "Goddess Rosary". Yuck.

Let's take a moment today, All Souls Day, when we visit a cemetery to pray for those who have died and are currently caught up in this and other forms of twisted modern idolatry. The world is hurting and yearning for Christ, and unfortunatley they try to find Him in some pretty weird ways.

It's O.K. to like zombie movies!

Another blogger beat me to the punch on this one. This past weekend I watched some more of The Walking Dead and thought I might pontificate on my blog about zombie movies. I have been fascinated at myself for a few years that I like them so much, and wondered why. I hoped the answer was not “because you are a psycho, Dave” and as it turns out, I very likely am not a psycho! Hooray! It turns out that many normal people like horror and zombie movies and find them stimulating on a deeper or even spiritual level. The blogs author even identifies The Walking Dead as Southern Gothic horror in the vein of Flannery O'Connor. That makes me feel super smart for liking zombie movies! So go ahead and watch Shawn of the dead, The Walking Dead or Zombieland guilt free.

Here is my take: Like all good sci-fi, horror movies have the ability to distill the meaning of life into precious small spaces. What do you take from your giant house when you flee it from attacking zombies? Family pictures and guns to protect your loved ones, of course. What do you do when a little girl is alone in the woods with zombies? Risk everything to find her, of course. What these human instinctual responses in the viewer tell us is that we are human, and being human is more than eating and breathing. Being human is about what you love, and what you were created to do. And unfortunately, many people seem to think they were created to pursue personal peace and affluence instead of walk toward their creator. Zombie movies make these choices clear. The Walking Dead even makes a point of having a scientist show a film of the brain activity of someone dying and coming back as a zombie. We see that only the "instinct" part of the brain stem is active. There is never any doubt by anyone in the show that these people are not human. They are dispatched with bloody abandon and indifference by the dozens. There is more pity taken on animals in the show than the zombies.

The message is loud and clear.

So loud in fact that my guess is that many fans of the show never notice it because it is plain obvious to them, although in their daily lives they might easily deny it. The message is that human beings are a special creation of a loving creator, and that we are made in His image and likeness. We are not the sum of our parts, or merely a central nervous system to be pleasured. One human life is worth every single zombie life even though they are made of the exact same physical material. So lets think about it:  if they are made of the same material and one can be slaughtered with less care than a pig, while the other is a precious life worth risking everything to save... what is the difference other than an eternal soul? And what does modern man scream to fulfill in all his depraved abuses of himself more than his soul? In this way, zombie movies are some of the most "christian" themed movies around. What other movie will the viewer always find himself making the correct choice with the characters-- to do the human thing. If only we all could pretend we lived in a zombie Apocalypse in our day to day lives, perhaps we would live the gospel each day.

Here is an excerpt of  Red Cardigan's excellent thinking on this topic:

“It's almost as though in order for us even to begin to touch base with the reality of life for so many, with such a universal human experience of the uncertainty of existence and the constant presence of things like fear and pain, we have to wipe away all the material clutter we've accumulated; we have to envision a world so destroyed that our pretenses at safety and stability no longer mean anything; we have to recognize our glorified caves and technological voodoo for what it all really is, and what it's all really worth, against the brevity and coldness and harshness of life at its most basic level. In such a fictional setting, we can see and value the mere works of human hands for what they are—“

Here was my response in the comments:

“Bizarre. I just watched the episode you describe this past weekend, and was struck by it as well. I did laugh out loud at the crucifix in the Baptist church though.
I believe we like zombie movies because they show us what we know to be true: humans are more than animals. Our culture around us knows this too, though they continually try to deny it by degrading human life through abortion, porn, etc. But in the end, they love zombies, because when they look at a zombie, they get a reassurance that to be human is to be more than a walking meat bag. Strangely, watching zombie movies can bring them/us closer to God.”

Subsidiarity and Distributism

A friend writes:

I'd like to get your opinion on the idea of a "one world government"? Evangelical people always associate it with evil / end time / anti-christ. What is your opinion (or what does the RCC teach) about it?




I don't think of things in terms of government "types". And I think in general the Catholic Church operates that way too. The "types" of governments we often compare with one another just seem to be different types of pickpocketing, or different types of cages to organize wage slaves (that is you and me). Choosing between anarchy, democracy, republic, or monarchy, is like choosing between brown eggs or white: Who cares what the shell looks like, what is inside? Is it rotten or yummy.

That yumminess increases the more a government lets families take more and more power. For example: familial ownership (not corporations) of the means of production. And decreases when the government tries to be the family by doing work given to families ( example: declaring sodomite marriage to be just fine).


If we ignore the types and focus on principle, the main, basic principle that will lead to a good government (whatever the "type") is the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. As far as a "one world" government, of course the world has been-there-done-that in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, so we don't have to wonder about it, history can tell us about it. And history tells us it is a neutral thing. It aint good or bad to have a one world government. Jesus lived under a one world government and didn't seem too upset about it. Personally what form my government takes makes me want to yawn. As long as my family has freedom to be Catholic and freedom from the "tyranny of relativism" (as BXVI puts it), I don't much care what they do... as long as they leave my family the hell alone when we try to practice our religion. And if they dont, then I will practice it anyway, and when Obama's goons come for my family, and my case of 1000 armor peircing 7.62mm rounds are spent, they can come nail us to crosses. A one world government did that to Jesus, and very small governments can do it too. And that is why the ideal government will always be the same size... the size of a family. The King just builds the road out in front of the family's house, but the family uses it. The FAMILY is the kingdom, NOT the King. So to define that government as a "monarchy" is not useful, because it says nothing about what the family does in the monarchy. See what I mean?

The Catholic magisterium sees the family as the top form of government in any society, with all other levels being of far less importance, or subsidiary to the family. Understanding this will help one to understand why Catholics get so upset about changes to the way a society views marriage. When society redefines marriage, they are striking the root of the tree... the family. The ussurpation of the identity and rights of the family is truly a revolution of greater significance than the French or American ones. JP2 and many others condemned communism and fascism, because they tend to take the rights of families away.



Here is the CCC on the principle of subsidiarity:



"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."


Subsidiarity is not followed very well by most governments, including the US of course. Socialist, banana republic weasels like Obama would not like it at all, and would hate Distributism even more.


The way the principle of subsidiarity "fleshes out" best is Distributism. Distributism was envisioned by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Beloc, who are my favorite 20th century thinkers. Almost everyone dislikes Distributism, so it is still left untried and unheard of. Capitalists hate it, commies hate it. I love it.


Hehe, Evangelicals and the end times, I have been there done that too. What if we had a one-world government and it was a GREAT government? What if it wasn't a tyranny but was all smiles and roses? I suppose they would be expecting the antichrist even more. As for me, I already live under a one world government... Christendom. Christ is the King of Kings, and I don't think that is figurative. Any government that does not submit to that fact is just organized thuggery who are given power by the true King to make martyrs. They are mere pawns.

Man's "Attempt" at Playing Church

Bob said:
"Let me see if I can explain what I mean about the church better. The church is 1 thing - the body of Christ (with Christ as its head). The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth... in multiple "churches". The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."


So the Church is "1 thing" yet is "multiple". Uh yeah, I think I see what you are trying to say. You failed to explain anything though. Again, what you describe is not a visible Church, which Scripture and Tradition say is something the Church MUST be! You just blithely waltz past those considerations however, and insist the Church is invisible, contrary to the Scripture you pretend to follow. Your conception of the Church is a product of the 16th century. Found nowhere in scripture or Tradition, and in fact the opposite is found in scripture. Yes, Christ is the head, and the Church is one, but I cant believe what you said next... "The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth." Huh? The Holy Spirit assembles the Church. And it assembles it so that it is one Church. God is not the author of disorder. The Church does not "attempt" anything, nor can it do ANYTHING without the animating life of the Holy Spirit, who is the "soul" of the Church. And just as two bodies cannot have one soul, there cannot be such a thing as "churches" which disagree with each other. Unless the Holy Spirit is the author of error.

"The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."

Where do you get that from? You are just making stuff up as you go man. You certainly didn't get that from scripture. In the scripture (which supposedly is your rule) the Church is described as being ONE and VISIBLE, binding and loosing, forgiving sins. Yeah, of course at the end of time after the resurrection, the Church will all be physically together, but that is not the point. The point is RIGHT NOW the Church (according to Scripture) needs to be ONE and VISIBLE. Again something you blithely are ignoring.

"If you find that belief insulting, I'm sorry. However, it is equally insulting to insist your "Pontiff" is the head of the church I am apart of."

What is insulting is not your conclusion, which many people come to, but your lack of good reasons for coming to it. And if you are insulted by having a pope, you are insulted by Christ then. He is the one who gave Peter the keys, and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth. Jesus said to his apostles "he who hears you hears me".

"I have no use for them or the office they claim to hold."

Yeah I gathered that. But just a correction, there is no mere "claim", there is a historic fact. The current Bishop of Rome is descended in ordinations from St. Peter. That is rarely disputed by anyone except the most mental fundies. If you look at the book I lent you by Fortiscue, (which was written to Anglicans btw) you will see a very basic sketch of the evidence up till Chalcedon of the Papal role in the Church and the uncontroversial nature of the succession. That is IF you read it, which at this point I think is just beyond you. Your level of argument with me has never exceeded the level of the most surface level internet "shock" apologetics. Case in point was when you thought you had really struck gold finding out that the Catholic 10 commandments are different and claiming they changed them so they could commit idolatry. I pointed out that Luther numbered them the same way, and I get silence from you. You obviously want to just pick up whatever sloppy argument from the internet you can to prove what you want to be true: Rome is the Antichrist. Or need I bring up the example of the "low hanging fruit" you attempted to pick from the Catholic tree of errors. What was the lowest fruit you could find? The perpetual virginity of Mary! Again, something Luther and Calvin believed, as with many modern Protestants and Catholic such as Augustine. It is low hanging fruit for the already convinced, but not for anyone interested in reality.

Even James White and his crew at AOM at least make an attempt to reference the early Church, you seem to have no desire to do so. And unlike the clipped haired Lesbian Bishops of your future ecclesial community, Catholic Bishops are in communion with Rome, something the early Church considered necessary to be called the Church. But of course to you, all those men were idolatrous (bowing to images), necromancing (praying to the dead), anti-Christ (submitting to the pope) and legalistic (rejected sola fide). Yep, they all got it wrong but the Reformation and Bob got it right.

What I find most revealing at this point is that less than two months ago you had basically decided on Catholicism and were agreeing that it's claim to being the true Church was valid and saying thing like:

"I think the evidence points more towards God punishing the RC church with protestantism for failing to root out evil. At the same time, the protestants are wrong for schisming."


I couldn't agree more.

One month ago you said:

"My guess is we'll end up at the church of the sacred heart in Robinsdale."

Then a week later you were calling Rome the anti-christ! To me this says it all dude. You are being led by emotions or something to be that up and down in so short a time. And when I read your current critiques of Catholicism, which have included all the most trite red herrings and straw men available,  I can't help but conclude you are not really looking into serious arguments on either side. You seemed very easily swayed towards Catholicism 2 months ago. I assumed you had been really looking into things. I am convinced that you have not however. Now that you are on the other bandwagon of hating the evil Romanists, you are still operating on the same emotional level. Homosexual Priests? Yes, remember you seriously gave that as an argument against Catholicism! The "changing the 10 commandments" straw man? You still have not conceded that you were duped (probably by some goofy website) on that one. Like I keep saying, go ahead and reject the Catholic Church, it's been done many times by better men than me and you. But either admit you just don't care to do the research to make an informed choice (which imo is quite obviously the case) OR be fair and do the research enough to find some real, solid Protestant objections. They are out there, I have heard them, but so far you have failed to find them or articulate them. If you truly think the "naughty popes" or "worshipping statues" arguments are good, solid arguments, then it is game over for the truth. You will be tossed about by whichever window-dressing argument you find.

THAT is what I find sad... not that you would reject Catholicism, but the poor reasons you are doing so.


 

Naughty Popes Argument

From a comment on Shameless Popery, a Lutheran minister asks:

"Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?"


My response:

The question implies an assumption that the pope is merely a man in all respects. But that is not what Catholics believe. We believe he is "protected" from teaching error when he determines to publicly teach the Church. That is a supernatural protection.

Personally I would not want Leo X as the next pope, but NOT because he might teach error, (that could never happen and HAS never happened) I would want someone like SAINT Pius X because he would be a better man and a better leader, and perhaps bring more people to Christ. Just remenber, a pope could murder and pillage and do all sorts of evil yet still be protected from teaching error. Think of the prophecy of Caiphas.

Women belong in the home. Men belong at work. Any questions femi-nazis?

And yes, of course the exceptions prove the rule. I myself  was raised by a single Mom who HAD to work. Key word: HAD. But lets not play games and pretend it is ok for a woman to choose that role unless it is a necessity/exception. Just having to give this caveat shows how far we have degenerated as a society.

Word on Fire contributor Dave Brenner made what I think are some common observations in an article today. All true and very sad. But I think he is way off the mark in his solution to the problem. The article is about how women are outpacing men in all areas of society now. His proposed solution is a sort of "let them eat cake" thing. My paraphrase would be something like "Do better, men". Well, it ain't that easy. Men and women are different, and papering over the gross abuse of gender roles in our culture is not helpful. I tried commenting on the blog, but I don't know if it went through, so here was my comment, beginning with a quote from the author:

''Those statistics are not a problem by themselves—it’s a good thing that women have more opportunities and are striving to fulfill their calling in life. The issue is not that women are catching up but that men are falling behind. ''


I disagree and I think you have truly missed the point. And missed it badly. When women are prominent in any important endeavor, they take it over completely, leaving men in their dust. The men will invariably turn into Seth Rogan. This is at the heart of Eve's curse to "desire her husband". She desires the authority position proper to men. When women en masse become players in the workforce or academics, it will never be 50/50. The women will win, and men will drop out.

For me it is frustrating to see so many women at my workplace taking jobs/pay away from fathers trying to support our families who are unemployed. And for what? An extra car to be able to go to work in your pant-suit?

The vast majority of these women by and large should be at home fulfilling their role as wife and mother. Raising godly children to conquer the world for Christ is the most important job in the world! Yet many women throw that chance away to collect a paycheck doing things they have no business doing. Their job is to nurture children and being a HELPER to their husbands, not taking on his role.

There can be no parity.


There can be no 50/50 of men/women in the workplace and university. If women try to fill men's roles, then the curse of Eve takes effect and God will give them over to their arrogation. The result is that men WILL become disillusioned and WILL give up. Which is exactly what is happening. Make fun of immature men all day, but unless we call our women back to their proper role, don't expect men to take back theirs.

What we men need to do is yell this truth from the rooftops. Get our women back in the home and out of the workforce, and take charge of society again. Until we reassert our role as the "garden tamers" God created men to be, women will continue to usurp our birthright, and to give up theirs at the same time. I the end, both sexes will not be fulfilled, and find only frustration. This is not sexist people, just true.

A Former Reformer is Coming Home

My old friend Andre has decided to swim the Tiber. Any Catholic readers here please go ahead and subscribe to his new blog Former Reformer and give him some encouragement and advice in this strange and exciting time for him and his family. On a personal note, it is nice to have a local Reformed friend here in the Twin Cities on the Catholic side of the river now.

On a recent post he compared the Reformed and Catholic liturgies/theologies and said that unlike the Reformed system:
 "...the true work and involvement is done at the Mass, where we meet Christ at Calvary and pray on our knees to break the power of the enemy. The fact that I was weary in my faith because I didn't feel like I was living up to the "Reformed theology standard of living" was because I was without the Eucharist. God's word did not return void,..."


I replied:

I just have to comment again! This past weekend, I went to confession and was totally renewed. I had some sins weighing on my mind and I let them go in the confessional, and Christ absolved me in the person of His priest. I then walked out of the confessional and kneeled down. It was the middle of the consecration, and as I joined my prayer with that of the silent group of people around me, I had a tangible sense of the "other-worldly" nature of what I was experiencing.
This was not about a sermon. It was not about tithing. It was not about being chummy with my buddies at church. It was about meeting God and destroying evil in myself and in the world. As RC Sproul would say, it was about being "coram deo". Before the face of God. When I looked up at the altar and saw Christ offering His body and blood to the Father, and thought of my former experience in Reformed churches, I thought how starved I had really been. Going from Reformed to Catholic is like going from an intravenous drip to thanksgiving dinner.