Replies

This is a matter of interpretation, as it usually is. As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching.

You are wrong. Baptism is based upon the saving works of Jesus Christ, not its own inherent power. Why do you keep this charade up, that Christ's work is antithetical to Catholic teaching? Why can't you get past the polemics and rhetoric and listen to what we say? We believe that Christ died for our sins once and for all, BUT that it is not applied to us until we are baptized, until we ask for forgiveness of sins, and until we receive the Eucharist. Is this so difficult?

Regards

I really don't think FK is lost in polemics. I DO think that a big part of the "Failure to communicate"(by which, of course, I mean "failure to agree with me") is the problem of Christ and Time, the problem if the Incarnation.

As a poorly expressed example:
If we say the sacrifice of the Mass is a recapitulation or re-presentation of The Sacrifice of Calvary, many conclude that there is a kind of multiplicity, of many-ness, and therefore of repetition and addition to Calvary in what we think we're doing. And if an addition is possible, desirable, or even necessary, then it must reasonably be concluded that there was something less than sufficient and less than comprehensive about Calvary.
But, if I understand our teaching correctly, there is no addition possible, much less desirable or necessary. This DOES leave us with the outrageous assertion that Calvary is happening right there on our altars and in our mouths.

But reading +Paul and what I think is his time-bending theology, I do not object to this particular aspect of the Christian proclamation. To me, it is the calculus of the Incarnation, of how you stuff eternity and eternity's God into a baby, without an explosion.

But of course, there is an explosion. It is in our hearts. It is a lethal explosion. It kills the old man. (Now, if I could just persuade him he's dead ...)

Why can't you get past the polemics and rhetoric and listen to what we say? We believe that Christ died for our sins once and for all, BUT that it is not applied to us until we are baptized, until we ask for forgiveness of sins, and until we receive the Eucharist. Is this so difficult?

It wasn't in my heart to get into polemics, so I'm sorry for sounding like that. In any event, by adding an application proviso which is not evident in the text, I think it really changes the meaning of the text that really IS there. My understanding of Catholicism is that when an infant is baptized he is saved from original sin. Now, if we stopped right there, then the thing that really concerns me wouldn't apply so much.

But of course, then we have further application as people commit mortal sins through life and take the Eucharist. To me that just doesn't logically match "once and for all". For example, my wife asks me to mow the lawn. I go out and do two rows and then I come back in, declaring "I've finished this week's mowing once and for all". She checks and comes back to me very unhappy. Do I say to her that I simply haven't fully applied the mowing yet? :) Anyway, that's why it's difficult for me to get this, along with the fact that I don't see the second step of application in scripture.