About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
Change “the sacrifice is enacted” to reenacted and you got it right in my book…
Our rituals encapsulate meaningful religious experiences they do not cause them in and of themselves.
Ultimately, the grace of God is not bound to the specific rituals of any institutional church, nor the manner in which the eucharist is received.
At least, that’s the way I’ve come to see things…
dlw
Christ’s sacrifice occured once for all. Everytime Catholics receive the Eucharist, they mystically participate in Christ’s one sacrifice. Thus, we do participate in the Lord’s consumation with his bride, the Church. But that doesn’t mean that Christ continually offers himself on the Cross as we celebrate Mass after Mass. No, we are caught up in his paschal mystery over and over again–his one sacrifice for all of us in all time.
“Our rituals encapsulate meaningful religious experiences they do not cause them in and of themselves.”
What do you mean by religious experiences? The thing is, I think that you assume that grace is something that is, necessarily, tied to “religious experiences” (I may be wrong, though). The thing is, divine grace isn’t perceptible. Simply because you “didn’t feel it” doesn’t mean that grace didn’t happen.
“Ultimately, the grace of God is not bound to the specific rituals of any institutional church, nor the manner in which the eucharist is received.”
Why not?
feelings of closeness to God that the weight of our sins has been lifted/forgiven…
Because, the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God, like as was done by the thief on the cross to whom Jesus promised that they would be in eternity together.
In that case, there was no time for ritual, just repentance.
dlw
DLW: “the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God”
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is [broken] for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” – 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (ESV)
If the Eucharist is merely about turning away from our sinful lives, how is it possible to profane it? If it is merely a symbolic sacrifice, there’s nothing to profane.
“Because, the grace of God is ultimately dependent on our turning away from our sinful lives and toward God”
I think you have it backwards. Grace causes us to turn away from sin — not the other way around. If it were the other way around, what would the point of grace be? I think that your position may rightly be called Pelagian.
One can profane the Eucharist by forgetting its ultimate referent and how our sins were only paid for by Jesus’s sacrifice.
It can become just a ritual to make us feel less guilty about our sinful lives.
The difference here is in that the Protestant perspective holds that that what makes the Eucharist sacred and to be done only with contemplation and reverence is its ultimate referent, which was present and about to be sacrificed during the first communion.
Whether or not a literal miracle takes place when one takes communion is of, at best, secondary importance.
dlw
Tom:I think you have it backwards. Grace causes us to turn away from sin — not the other way around. If it were the other way around, what would the point of grace be? I think that your position may rightly be called Pelagian.
No Grace makes it possible for us to turn away from sin and be forgiven despite our lack of merit. It is our inability to merit salvation of our own accord that necessitates Grace. This is the standard position held by Arminians and I believe held by many Catholics, many of whom tend to be Arminian, holding to the free-will defence.
dlw
“Whether or not a literal miracle takes place when one takes communion is of, at best, secondary importance.”
Really? Wouldn’t you say that Christ’s physical presence is a tad more important than what we think about during communion? If you were in the court of a king to pay him homage, what’s more important: paying him homage or thinking about him? The correct answer, I think, is that, while they’re both important, the acknowledgement of his presence must take the first place.
“No Grace makes it possible for us to turn away from sin and be forgiven despite our lack of merit.”
I partly agree. I am undecided on the matter of whether or not grace is resistable.
“It is our inability to merit salvation of our own accord that necessitates Grace.”
I (and Catholicism) agree.
“This is the standard position held by Arminians and I believe held by many Catholics, many of whom tend to be Arminian, holding to the free-will defence.”
I disagree that Catholics tend toward Arminianism, if for no other reason than that Arminius was reacting against Calvin, who takes his cues from two Catholics: SS. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The Thomistic school, the most influential theological school of the past 700 or so years, typically believe in single predestination (Calvin believed in double) and a very damaging Fall (like Calvin) and a fairly irresistable grace (like Calvin). Catholic theology has always operated independently of Protestant theology, which is why Protestants who try to put Catholic soteriology and theology of grace into Protestant terms usually fail. Catholic belief on the matter falls under a few different schools, the Thomists and the Molinists being the two most influential. Molinism was developed in order to address the seeming free-will problem within Thomistic theology of grace and soteriology. However, this is actually the area of Catholicism I know least about, so, if you’re interested, the Catholic Encyclopedia is probably a better source than I.
“One can profane the Eucharist by forgetting its ultimate referent and how our sins were only paid for by Jesus’s sacrifice.”
That would be profaning the second Person of the Trinity, not the Eucharist. The passage talks about the profanation of the Eucharist, not the profanation of the referent of the Eucharist in your model, Christ. Also, wouldn’t the passage have said something like “guilty of profaning the name of the Lord,” rather than “the body and blood of the Lord?”
It’s always a pleasure dialoguing with you tom.
Me:”Whether or not a literal miracle takes place when one takes communion is of, at best, secondary importance.”
Tom:Really? Wouldn’t you say that Christ’s physical presence is a tad more important than what we think about during communion? If you were in the court of a king to pay him homage, what’s more important: paying him homage or thinking about him? The correct answer, I think, is that, while they’re both important, the acknowledgement of his presence must take the first place.
God is always present, that’s because God is omnipresent ;). What varies is our awareness of God’s presence. As such, it doesn’t matter if God is literally present, with the same dna structure that Jesus had some 2000 years ago, when we take communion. We need to be reminded of God’s presence in our lives and God’s sacrifice on our behalf so as to reconcile us with God.
Me:”No Grace makes it possible for us to turn away from sin and be forgiven despite our lack of merit.”
Tom:I partly agree. I am undecided on the matter of whether or not grace is resistable.
I hope you can figure that one out for the rest of us… 🙂 I don’t think God gives us free-will so that it can be taken away from us on the most important decision in our lives.
Me:”It is our inability to merit salvation of our own accord that necessitates Grace.”
Tom:I (and Catholicism) agree.
Hallelujah! And that has nothing to do with grace being irresistible or what-not…
Me:”This is the standard position held by Arminians and I believe held by many Catholics, many of whom tend to be Arminian, holding to the free-will defence.”
Tom:I disagree that Catholics tend toward Arminianism, if for no other reason than that Arminius was reacting against Calvin, who takes his cues from two Catholics: SS. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The Thomistic school, the most influential theological school of the past 700 or so years, typically believe in single predestination (Calvin believed in double) and a very damaging Fall (like Calvin) and a fairly irresistable grace (like Calvin).
Remind me again the diff between single and double predestination?
How is grace fairly irresistible? Prob(Salvation)=.995?
As I understand it, predestination almost alway refers to the elect, who in biblical times would have been more likely to be understood as another word for the remnant faithful, ie, there will always be those who continue to seek a covenantal relationship with Yahweh. But this need not be a specific group of specific individuals as postulated in hyper-calvinism, but rather just a group of individuals.
Catholic theology has always operated independently of Protestant theology, which is why Protestants who try to put Catholic soteriology and theology of grace into Protestant terms usually fail. Catholic belief on the matter falls under a few different schools, the Thomists and the Molinists being the two most influential. Molinism was developed in order to address the seeming free-will problem within Thomistic theology of grace and soteriology. However, this is actually the area of Catholicism I know least about, so, if you’re interested, the Catholic Encyclopedia is probably a better source than I.
I’ve had friends share with me a bit of Molinism and some of the differences between Thomist/ Augustinina approach with Calvinism. I agree they are different, but there are “parallels” or family resemblances. Concepts do have lives apart from the language and traditions within which we understand them. That’s how I’ve found that I can see parallels between aspects of muslim belief and Christian belief.
Me:”One can profane the Eucharist by forgetting its ultimate referent and how our sins were only paid for by Jesus’s sacrifice.”
Tom:That would be profaning the second Person of the Trinity, not the Eucharist. The passage talks about the profanation of the Eucharist, not the profanation of the referent of the Eucharist in your model, Christ.
Last I read it, the direct command was for us to do communion in remembrance of Jesus and so the one we would be profaning is Jesus. Also, since the cause of the profaning is “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” The next verse describes some of what it means for us to take communion in an unworth manner. It has all the world to do with our self-examination and nothing to do with whether we acknowledge whether transubstantiation takes place.
Also, wouldn’t the passage have said something like “guilty of profaning the name of the Lord,” rather than “the body and blood of the Lord?”
Once again the point is that God did become flesh and did die on behalf of our sins and so the referent need not be to an immediate change in the physical composition of the communion.
And, once more, for me I don’t really care about the locution, precise referent of Jesus’s words, but rather the illocution intent of us remembering and following him in discipleship. Too much bitter division has existed between committed believers in the past on account of the locution. And so on one level realism demands that either the physical change takes place or it doesn’t, but on another level, some folks put far too much significance in the answer to that question and so it might be better just not to answer it.
dlw
“And, once more, for me I don’t really care about the locution, precise referent of Jesus’s words, but rather the illocution intent of us remembering and following him in discipleship.”
The probelm with this view of the words of institution is that the Greek word for “remembrance”, “anamnesis”, means more than just remembering or recalling. It means something akin to “make present again”. Furthermore, the “this” Christ refers to is the breaking of bread and sharing of the cup in the manner he demonstrated. The actions he took were a marked departure from the rituals of a traditional Passover meal.
I don’t know what it was like for you before your Catholic days, but since I was a child I have always concentrated intently at time of communion on both the object of communion and the words of Jesus and God has become immanent in my experience through the reenactment.
dlw
“God is always present, that’s because God is omnipresent. What varies is our awareness of God’s presence.”
I have to take issue with your characterization of God’s omnipresence. (And I just like to talk about the metaphysics of God and theology.) Not to pound Thomism too much, but I like Aquinas’ view on the matter; that is, that God is omnipresent, but does not dwell within the substance of matter (as pantheists would argue). That is why we cannot worship rocks and clouds and trees. God’s substance allows matter to exist within it; in a sense, God isn’t everywhere so much as everything is within God. This view is known as panentheism. How is this relevant? In the Eucharist, God makes himself present in another way than the typical omnipresence which supports matter. God’s substance remains in the background, but also takes up residence under the species of bread and wine, replacing the substances of the bread and wine. This is why we say that God is not only physically, but locally, present in the Eucharist, and why the Eucharistic elements may legitimately be worshipped with latria.
“Remind me again the diff between single and double predestination?”
Double predestination comes from Calvin’s very hard reading of Augustine, which results in a predestination of both the elect and the reprobate. Catholic theologians typically believe in single predestination (that of the elect), with varying interpretations of what happens to the non-predestined.
“How is grace fairly irresistible? Prob(Salvation)=.995?”
My mistake for obfuscating this one. What I meant by the phrase was that Aquinas and the Thomists have a fairly Augustinian view of grace, which tends more towards irresistability than resistability.
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Taking Stock