Drama

Italy 2007

That Explains a Lot

According to Donald T. Williams, Flannery O'Connor described her generation as one "that has been made to feel that the aim of learning is to eliminate mystery."

"The sorry religious novel comes about when the writer supposes that because of his belief, he is somehow dispensed from the obligation to penetrate concrete reality."
Flannery O"Connor

See the latest issue of Touchstone for the article by Donald T. Williams.

A Bit of This, A Bit of That

A classmate from college recently posted on his blog concerning a line of doctrinal thought known as "Federal Vision." It involves people in the Reformed wing of the Church who are content to use biblical language about sacraments and the nature of the Church, without as much explanation and qualification as most Reformed Protestants give. For example, using the term "baptismal regeneration" in a context other than condemning it. This has caused a stir in certain quarters. Ya might say.

But on a different topic, namely, the audacity of many protestants in rejecting long-held doctrines of the Church based on their own reason, I offered him my comment to the effect that rejecting the Roman teaching on the nature of Christ in the Mass (which is not what the fathers taught) is not the same as rejecting the Virgin Birth, since the latter is creedal while the former is not. Or I should say with Turretin, "The latter we affirm, the former we deny."

He (who is a RC in the Byzantine rite) replied,

"Anything defined by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (i.e. by particular Papal decree on matters of faith and morals or a council of the all the Bishops of the Church in union with teh Bishop of Rome) is as binding as anything defined in the 4th century. The Magesterium and its boundaries never changed. The same authority that wrote the Nicene Creed and closed the Cannon of Sacred Scripture defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven. There is no difference."

But isn't the point who and not when? I'm not arguing that because the Nicene Creed was formulated in the 4th century, it's therefore more binding, but that it is the product of the whole church, not one bishop. Otherwise, why the council at Jerusalem if Peter could've just solved the problem? Even the main foundation stone of the church doesn't make the whole.

High School Backpacking 2007

Or, Six Days, Five Nights in Lassen National Wilderness

In the first picture, we were all looking across the stream at the camera while Mr. Bartel set the timer, then he came bounding over the stream and took his place just in time to grin naturally, and *click* the camera went. Our smiles are very real right there.

The Dancing Heavens

It seems that the view of the heavens at one time was essentially that of a great dance floor or ballroom, which featured heavenly bodies moving in their own orderly fashions, skillfully, not running into one another. There was also music "the music of the spheres," because what is music but proportion, and harmony, and movement? The heavens were a joyful place. The closer one got to God, the further upward a person went, the faster the dance got, and the more joy there was.

Skip to now. The heavens are first of all silent, then mostly dark, empty, and cold, except when they're far too hot, with orbs of rock moving in airless space, somehow avoiding collision. We don't call it "the heavens" anymore. It's just Space. If we ever consider an "upward" to Space, the further up you go, the less you will be able to breathe or stay warm. Not joyful. And as one early astronaut said, He went to heaven and didn't see any God.

At least to the medieval, joy was in some sense status quo in the universe, even if earth itself was often grievous. The heavens themselves were singing, and if he couldn't hear, it was just the noise of his surroundings interfering. I know it's not scientific, and my apologies to our esteemed earth science teacher... but what a great cosomology.