Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Christianity is not cannibalism. Grace is not found in the material, but in the spiritual. Rome continues to shove the material world in our faces when Christ tells us the truth is spiritually-discerned.

Protestants secure their sanctification (the gradual transformation towards a glorified body and mind) primarily by their repentance and continual move towards increasingly ethical behavior. From what I am told by Catholics on FR, (and stop me if I’m wrong) Catholics are sanctified primarily by the ingestion of the Eucharist. For Protestants, it is a question of ethics and behavior 24/7. For Catholics, it appears to be diet and confession, i.e. ingesting a unique and beneficial dietary supplement, akin to taking growth hormones, will itself cause a change in one’s physical and moral makeup. Protestants = behavior. Catholics = participation in ceremony and diet.

199 posted on 04/03/2008 10:43:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]


To: Alex Murphy
...and continual move towards increasingly ethical behavior.

Not by works, but faith alone!

202 posted on 04/03/2008 10:44:51 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
AMEN!

"But ye have not so learned Christ;

If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." -- Ephesians 4:20-24


221 posted on 04/03/2008 10:53:15 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
Protestants = behavior. Catholics = participation in ceremony and diet.

Is that truly, seriously, indeed what you've gotten from several years participation in this forum ... I'm astonished, really. I can't speak to what Protestantism believes. (And is that Protestant, Reformed, Restorationist, Baptist, or something else? Or are you using "Protestant" in the broadly construed sense that you once rebuked me for using?) In any case, if you really, truly think that Catholics are only concerned with ceremony and diet, I would advise going back to square one. Your understanding could not be more incorrect if you tried.

226 posted on 04/03/2008 10:56:20 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
I'm going to have to work on the Blessed Sacrament as "diet". Of course, there's Catherine of Siena. She reportedly lived on nothing but the sacrament. I should try that.

Humma humma, thinking noises here ....

Minor quibble with word "ceremony". Sacrament is different from ceremony and more than the ritual and ceremonial. From our POV anyway.

And while it works for the joke, I really think that in many respects the "high receptionism" of some Calvinism and Transubstantiation, are not ALL that different. Part of the problem in discourse is, to my way of thinking summarized, but not clarified, by Paul's saying "It is raised a spiritual body".

What is a "spiritual body"? How are we to think of it.

The relevance is that in sort of by-the-numbers transubstantiationism the substance of which we partake is the, so to speak "current" substance of our Lord. And currently he has a resurrected and, presumably, "spiritual" body.

Just as His resurrected body was palpable and able to eat, we may wonder about the physical consequences of participation in the Sacrament.

I'm not sure, though, that this line of enquiry is going to get us anywhere. It may be more useful to note that participation in the sacrament does not take place in a vacuum. It presumes the absence of unabsolved mortal sin. That in turn implies a life of less than unbridled vice.In Paul, is it okay to say that "spirit" is not opposed to "material" but to "flesh"? I think Paul has a readily, though not briefly, described meaning to those two words, which avoids the gnostic dualism they seem to imply. The "hint" would be that the flesh is dying (or has died) while the Spirit lives and gives life. This still doesn't riddle out the meaning of "spiritual body" but we can dare to guess that it is a body which does not die but rather is overflowing with life.

If I pretend I don't have a dog in this fight, I can see -- and in fact my brief researches into Paul's use of flesh and Spirit were prompted by this impression, how we would look materialistic. But just as I'm sure you all would (and should - the charge is unjust) have a good answer to the charge of dualism, we will talk about the Incarnation and the "taking of the manhood into God" (so-called Athanasian Creed).

Conversation about the Eucharist will sooner or later come down to conversation about the "esse" of a thing, what a thing IS (as opposed to what it is made of - or looks like or weighs or whatever). That is why (a)Eucharistic Theology is a demanding discipline and (b) it's not well done in sound bites and aphorisms.

Pardon the ponderous pomposity. I was in haste. Cats need fed, wife needs greeted, smooched, etc. ...

415 posted on 04/03/2008 3:34:35 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson