SolaChristo:
Again I believe you have misunderstood what Ive said.
How exactly is the spiritual reality missed when the physical reality is focused on us? Please answer that for us. You are in effect saying that if we focus too much on the Incarnation, on how God became man, we will lose sight of its spiritual reality. You are in effect saying that if we focus too much on the PHYSICAL reality of the Resurrection, we will lose sight of important spiritual matters.
You will say I have misunderstood you, that you firmly believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I’m sure you do. But how can you then make arguments like the one’s you’re making? Please tell me how it’s possible to focus and meditate on the fact that God TOOK PHYSICAL FLESH and at the same time lose anything spiritual. You can’t. You’re arguments are anti-Incarnation.
You say that “what is born of flesh is flesh” refers to that born “in the natural.” How, exactly, was Christ born in an unnatural way? How was His birth different from any one of ours? His conception was certainly miraculous, but His birth was just like any one of ours.
According to your arguments, there was no spiritual reality to the miracle that Our Lord performed in making the blind man see again by taking mud and rubbing it on his eyes. He used PHYSICAL MATTER to convey a SPIRITUAL REALITY. Are you saying that the blind man, by focusing on the mud that Our Lord rubbed into His eyes, lost sight of the spiritual reality of the miracle that Jesus performed on him? How? According to your rationale, the could not have conveyed a spiritual reality, because mud is physical.
The woman who had the “issue of blood,” who said to herself, “If only I can touch His cloak, I shall be healed,” was certainly focusing on the PHYSICAL ASPECT of Jesus. She had faith that if she PHYSICALLY TOUCHED His cloak, she would be healed. And what happened? It worked. She had faith IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF GOD, THAT THIS PRESENCE WOULD HEAL HER. Yet under your rationale, she was wrong to have such faith, because she was focusing too much on the physical.
Why, exactly, cannot Our Lord’s actual, physical Flesh and Blood convey a spiritual reality? Why exactly, please tell me, can God not convey spiritual grace to us through eating His physical Flesh and Blood, the very Flesh and Blood that saves us?
If you are to be consistent in your arguments, you must reject that Our Lord saves us by His Flesh and Blood, because according to you the physical cannot convey a spiritual grace.
You say that I have misunderstood you. How? I know you never denied the Ressurection or the Incarnation. I’m sure you’re a fervent believer in it. But if you take the arguments you make in opposing the Eucharist to their logical conclusions, you must deny the Incarnation and the Ressurection. I’m trying to show you your inconsistency. Your arguments are neo-Gnostic. You reject the notion that the physical can convey a spritual reality.
I am not misunderstanding you. I am just showing you the logical conclusions of your argument. If you think I am misunderstanding you, show me where I have misconstrued your arguments. You said that focusing on the physical detracts from the spiritual. That means that it was wrong for Our Lord to become man, because as a physical person, He detracted from His spiritual reality.
And please stop imposing words into Scripture that are not there. What is your contextual justification for saying that “what is born of flesh is flesh” refers to what is born “in the natural”? Please show me where in Scripture it says that it refers to that “born in the natural.”
With what you understand of the Lords Supper… I am sure that you do.
on bad days but generally its nightly with prayers. But Catholics go to the booth and talk to priests, so do you confess only then or through the week in prayers as well??