Replies

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 ...)

We have been trying and trying to explain, but it keeps coming back to "you resacrifice Christ" or "you don't think that Christ's work was sufficient". Rather than say such things, which we deny over and over in clear language, it might be better to say "I don't understand" or "you are not making sense", if it is a communication problem. Trust me, I have spent well many hours communicating with FK and trying to explain Catholicism. Unfortunately, it sometimes goes back to square one...

Yes, the incarnation, to understand more fully, MUST be a realization that God and man has joined. Somehow, time and timelessness has joined. Thus, whatever the Son does, who has become a hypostatic union of two natures in a point of time, is done also by God. Thus, we can say that the Cross has entered into timelessness somehow.

I hear you about the old man. Mine keeps trying to get out of bed!

Regards

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.

Yes, I think that's how many outsiders can easily see it.

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 ...)

Amen to that! Haven't figured that one out myself. :)