Central to the Christian faith is the Incarnation of Christ. This incarnational structure permeates all of Catholic theology. In Christ, we see the culmination of the sanctification of matter. In becoming fully human, Christ elevates the material world to a new dignity. What was “good” solely because God created it (in Genesis), now is raised even higher as a result of Christ’s Incarnation. He sanctifies water through his baptism, and subsequently water is raised to its new dignity. He sanctifies bread and wine, which become his body and blood. He sanctifies the entire mode of human life. All through out his life, Christ is sanctifying the material order. The Catholic faith is a sacramental faith where the spiritual and material work together. This is a reflection of the incarnate Christ, who is himself called the “Sacrament of the Church”.I’m not sure where this question should go but could you please give me explanation or links which explain the difference between the Catholic understanding of matter and other Christians? I believe that we see matter as good in itself and capable of being imbued with God. Is that correct? What is the Protestant view? Isn’t that why we are more comfortable with sensual aspects to our faith and practice?
Yes, you are correct. Except the Church has no official teaching on exactly how or in what way God is, most intimately, present to all of His creation. Thomas Aquinas says that God’s power is present everywhere and where God’s power is, there is God in His Divine reality.I’m not sure where this question should go but could you please give me explanation or links which explain the difference between the Catholic understanding of matter and other Christians? I believe that we see matter as good in itself and capable of being imbued with God. Is that correct? What is the Protestant view? Isn’t that why we are more comfortable with sensual aspects to our faith and practice?
For the Platonic realist, the essences of things are transcendent, existing in a “third realm” beyond both the material world and any mind. For the Aristotelian realist, essences are immanent, existing as constituents of the things themselves. For instance, the Form of Tree, for Plato, exists utterly apart from any particular tree, while for Aristotle a tree’s form (no caps needed, thank you very much) is a metaphysical component of the tree itself, not something external to it. Where they agree is in holding that the form or essence of the tree is something objective and repeatable, that this tree, that tree, and the other tree share the same nature, and that that nature determines what is good for trees as a matter of objective fact – such as that a tree that sinks its roots deep into the soil so as to give it stability and take in nutrients is to that extent a good tree, and that a tree which due to genetic defect or injury is unable to sink its roots very deep is to that extent bad and defective qua tree.
The differences between Platonism and Aristotelianism make a very real difference, though. Given the transcendence of the realm of the Forms, the Platonist is bound to regard the material world not only as second-rate but even as positively contemptible, and the body and its passions as a prison from which the soul needs to escape if it is to attain true wisdom and happiness. There is no such implication in Aristotelian realism. On the contrary, the Aristotelian regards the material world as good, and man as an essentially embodied being for whom the goods of the body, while less noble than those of the intellect, are nevertheless real goods worthy of pursuit in moderation.
However, I would hesitate before applying this to all Protestants, especially those with a high understanding of sacrament.
Yes, you are correct. Except the Church has no official teaching on exactly how or in what way God is, most intimately, present to all of His creation. Thomas Aquinas says that God’s power is present everywhere and where God’s power is, there is God in His Divine reality.
Linus2nd