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.
“This verse seems to be a favorite among Evangelicals. It’s an essential part of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.” With all due respect, I don’t think that’s correct. Of course, my own observations may be incorrect. But it seems to me that only dispensationalists place a great deal of emphasis on this scripture. ISTM that mainline Protestants (the spiritual heirs of the inventors of sola scriptura) hardly even notice it.
“I don’t know what you mean by binding, but the SBC is as loose a confederation of independent churches if there ever was one.”
Never having had direct contact with them, I was speaking based on the numerous boycotts, rallying cries, and political endorsements they’ve made. They certainly look cohesive, regardless of whether they actually are.
“To be fair, the more astute protestants do have catechisms, and the more anal (i.e., orthodox) among them refer to them quite a bit.”
This is true, but the plurality of catechisms is part of the problem I described. 1) They’re not intended to be universally applicable or binding (or at least they’re not enforced as such) and 2) If you don’t like it, you can shop around until you find one you do like or start your own group. Protestants have a broad and deep family tree and they can all trace their roots back to someone who said, ala Cartman, “Screw you guys. I’m leaving.”
When I did decide to dive into the Tiber, it was my heart that led me, not my mind. Faith came first. Catechesis came later. The Church found me. I didn’t shop around for it.
Well I thought you were using the term “catechism” metaphorically in the shopping story. If you put it this way, virtually no one is “shopping for a catechism.” The transient middle of Protestantism is not looking for catechesis. They don’t even know what that means. Instead, they’re looking for a feeling, for therapy, for good influences for their children, comfortable pews, large parking lots, and user-friendly interfaces, almost anything but a catechism.
You’re right, faith ought (must) come first. Add to your faith, virtue; to virtue, knowledge… The problem isn’t what people are shopping for, it is that they’re shopping at all… this is generally indicative of a soul already poisoned the consumerist zeitgeist… I am, of course, excepted from this generalization 😉
Cheers!
Actually, I did no such shopping around. I spent a few years as an agnostic. After that, I flirted with a non-denom Protestant group, but that had little impact and I basically remained agnostic. I was moved to give Christianity another chance by the actions and attitudes of my friends. I saw how their faith touched their lives and made them better, happier people. At first, I clung fiercely to my Protestant upbringing, which I brought with me when I gave RCIA a try. I was mainly there to pose annoying Protestant “gotcha” questions and had no intention of converting. When I did decide to dive into the Tiber, it was my heart that led me, not my mind. Faith came first. Catechesis came later. The Church found me. I didn’t shop around for it.
Another problem of ecclesiology arises due to democracy (representative or direct) in denominations. As popular notions shift, so do church policies. Thus even in mainline Protestant denomination more and more heterodoxy is tolerated. The only Protestant group I can think of that often makes binding pronouncements is the Southern Baptist Convention.
Baptist churches are among the most autonomous, autocephalous churches within Christendom. I don’t know what you mean by binding, but the SBC is as loose a confederation of independent churches if there ever was one. We visited a SB church in VA (once) with a woman pastor. Tongues are practiced in others. Some Baptist churches are led by powerful pastors (effectively creating an almost Catholic governance at a parish level), others are led by powerful congregations (which is surely the most unbiblical ecclesial governance ever invented). But one thing’s for sure: None are led by conventions… and most are quite proud of this fact.
Your points about there being multiple catechisms and about the right (tacit or otherwise) of revolt (shopping around) are true. But I don’t think it is fair to say that particular catechisms are not binding in those particular churches. The Westminster Catechism is at least as binding (probably much more so) within OP and PCA circles as the CCC in the RCC. These groups splintered off the mainline Presbyterians precisely because the modernists no longer held or enforced the clear teaching of the catechism. This is why I often refer to such groups as theological fetishist. But I mean no disrespect thereby, for it is far more noble and righteous to stand strong for the faith handed down by their forefathers, than it is to simply stand for nothing, which is what their liberal mainline brethren do.
The worst that can be said for such conservative prot groups is that they are merely wrong on a few doctrines. If they sin, they sin boldly. And those who sin boldly may very well come to repentance. But it is an entirely different eschelon of error to not have doctrine at all: for there is nothing of which to repent.
Cheers!
BTW, I’m not condemning. I merely intended to show a fatal flaw in sola scriptura. I don’t often see it critiqued in an eccelesiological. Perhaps others have done so, but it was novel to me.
Differences in liturgical practices and the degree of individual orthodoxy are not the same as differences in how orthodoxy is defined. Protestants have nothing like a catechism to which they can all refer. There is no single arbitrating body like the Vatican to settile disputes. Yes, they are all unified in their worship of Jesus Christ, but they vary greatly in how one defines proper worship (I mean dogma and doctrine, not liturgy, here.).
Funky, you shopped around for a catechism you liked. Having found one, you now condemn others for doing the same searching you did.
I honestly don’t think the “there be millions of Protestant denominations” argument against sola scriptura is very good, simply because the groups that take sola scriptura seriously seem to be fairly close in doctrine, whereas people like ECUSA, ELCA, UCC and PCUSA really haven’t any doctrine. Not that I know much about Protestant denominations.
Regarding Protestant ecclesiology, however, I do have a good deal to say. This notion of the Body of Christ being made up of basically everybody who wants to be part of it is simply garbage with no backing in Tradition or reason. It simply doesn’t make sense, and it was a way for Protestants to get around the fact that they couldn’t define the Body of Christ because they threw out any notion of authority, and were unable to stop schism and couldn’t effectively define orthodoxy in opposition to heresy. Unfortunately, a little bit closer to home, Vatican II came out with this wonderfully vague ecclesiological formula: “The Church of Christ subsists fully in the Catholic Church,” whereas the older, simpler, less vague, and probably more correct formula was simply: “The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.” It was good that VII acknowledged that elements of truth exist in other particular churches (the Constantinopolitan Orthodox and the other old apostolic churches) and Protestant sects. It was good that VII acknowledged that grace can be conferred by the actions of non-Catholics (particularly among those without sacraments). (This is not to state that the preconciliar church was somehow uncharitable in its assessments of non-Catholic ecclesiae, but that there simply was no formal Catholic teaching on the status of other groups.) But why did the Fathers fuzzify a pretty clear and coherent teaching? Seriously, there can’t be a schism within the Mystical Body of Christ. That’s the patristic orthodoxy right there. That’s the biggest problem with the Protestant ecclesiology, if you ask me. How can there be separate communions within the one Body of Christ? It doesn’t make sense. I can kinda understand how others can be affiliated with the Body of Christ without being part of it, but separate Eucharistic Communions existing within? How can two different ecclesiae hold to mutually exclusive doctrines (one man’s heresy is another man’s orthodoxy) and be part of the Body of Christ? I think it might be because the Catholic and Orthodox view on the Body of Christ is much more sacramental, liturgical, and metaphysical than the Protestant view. Protestants, taking a fairly low view of the flesh because of New Testament verses of which I don’t recall, reject ex opere operato sacramental efficacity and patristic/scholastic notions of substantia/ousia, in the process bifurcating religion and metaphysics and effectively throwing up an insurmountable wall between the heavenly and the earthly. Apostolic Christians (I mean those with Apostolic Succession, who believe in Tradition), on the other hand, have no such wall between heaven and earth, and see every action as being actuated metaphysically and having direct results in the heavenly world as well as the earthly (how’s that to make you think twice about your concupiscent desires?). Having such a sacramental outlook on things makes for a much more serious and lofty conception of the Mystical Body of Christ, namely that it is sacramental in nature. Man, the world must seem so bland to Protestants.
If this reply seemed uncharitable, it certainly wasn’t meant to be.
I would caution that the uniformity of the Church is largely over stated. The Church varies state to state and even parish to parish. Also, there are branches such as the Polish Catholic Church of the Coptic Church which Rome accepts as being part of Catholicism even though they are different.
Likewise, aren’t all the various Protestant branches united through their worship of Christ?
Also, it’s worth noting that the splintering of Protestant branches is an overwhelmingly American phenomina. Europe never developed nearly as many denominations.
Oh, about practicing orthodox Christians being closer to Orthodox Jews than progressive Christians, I think you’re right on, Steve. As a Catholic, I feel, at a very basic level, that I have a very similar worldview, outlook, and fundamental lifestyle to those of orthodox religious belief, across the board, but paricularly to those who have a similar heaven/earth metaphysic, as Jews do (as near as I can tell, anyway).
Oh, one more thing about the Protestant vs. Catholic conceptions of the Mystical Body of Christ. In the more sacramental outlook, each action causes cosmic reverberations, and as such, one becomes very aware of God’s presence, and the effects of one’s actions.
Re sola scriptura, the Pontificator (a long time Episcopal priest who has recently announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism) posted on it awhile back on his Pontifications blogsite at:
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=864
I think all of you will find it interesting.
Peace
To be fair, the more astute protestants do have catechisms, and the more anal (i.e., orthodox) among them refer to them quite a bit. The most famous of these are no doubt Luther’s Catechisms (Small and Large) and the Westminster Catechism). So, ironically, these groups most closely allied with the reformation and most purely fixated on its dogmas (one of of course being sola scriptura), are the ones that provide an ecclesial remedy to the excesses of sola scriptura, which you correctly note. In conservative Lutheran (LCMS, WELS) and Presbyterian (OP, PCA) churches, members, and absolutely positively teachers, must subscribe to the Lutheran or Westmininster Catechisms, respectively, not in so far as they are in accord with scripture, but because they are in accord with Scripture.
The real mess comes with low church prots (which is the vast unwashed mass of evangelicalism), where “sola scriptura” is nary a stone’s throw from “do whatever the hell you think”. Most such prots have never so much as heard of a catechism, much less regarded ecclesial authority as essential to the faith. Hence, the main body of evangelicalism has already slipped well into the domain of Moral Therapeutic Deism (Nationalistic Paganism) vis-a-vis historically recognizable orthodox Christianity.
Never one to mince words….
My $0.02
Cheers!
Wow, Ken! Pontificator’s protestant correspondent started with the strongest position I’d ever heard in support of Scripture Alone. And then levelled it with the most devastating argument against I’ve ever seen. It is getting very difficult for me to imagine a future outside the RCC or the Orthodox.
Cheers!
Yes, John, Funky did, and he’s not denying free will to people, he’s just denying that all catechisms are equal.
ZzziingG! Ouch!! It’s true to some extent, Funky. I myself am “shopping” for a catechism (one with a community to match its rigor and faithfulness). This is why I think we need to go easy at least some of the Protestants. Those who hold sola scriptura most tightly (conservative, often Catholic baiting, theological fetishists) are also the ones most deeply rooted in the “traditions” of their forefathers. These are not the types going out and starting a new protestant denomination every 12 hours (which is an educated guess at the worldwide rate). Faithful Catholics have far more in common with faithful PCAers and LCMSers (and, truth be told, more in common with Hasidic Jews) than they have in common with “progessives” of their own faith.
My $0.02