It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you are requiring non-Catholics (those not part of YOUR group of Christians) to stop taking communion, i.e. not be allowed to be part of the catholic (universal) church, then you aren't being very universal in your Roman Catholicism.
Is that too much to ask? To basically just not hate us? Before you go to Communion? The Scripture warns about receiving "unworthily" (1st Corinthians 11). It also (1st Corinthians 10:21) alludes to Malachi 1:7 &12 ("table" meaning altar), sustaining the Catholic teaching that it's a sacrifice and not merely a memorial ritual.
Maybe so. But you had made a statement that the anointing of the Holy Spirit caused an ontological change, like becoming a sheep instead of a goat, or passing from death to life, even if "probationary" or "reversible".
I did. But that was just to offer up a seeming possibility while sticking fairly tightly to the actual text. obv for example we are living, breathing souls here. None of us are dead in a very conventional sense of the word. But I think there's a different convention in play when Paul is writing, when the context suggests that he's not talking about the very conventional sense of the concept of dead.
Someone that passes from death to life, then back to death, and then back to life, perhaps, doesn't seem to have really passed from death to life.
It certainly seems that it is more likely that this is not the case, yes; agreed.
This is one reason I feel like our definitions of "death" and "life" are insufficient, or perhaps insincere, if they don't address the real death and life state, but some "spiritual" death and life state.
Paul says c. "dead in sins" a couple times, doesn't he?
Ok, but I hadn't encountered such usage before. In today's language, "accident" is rarely ever associated with "properties".
Yes basically. A substance is what a thing is. Accidents are everything else. (It's a way to categorize or think about stuff.) Trans means change. "Trans-substance" means the substance changes, like from a corpse to a living soul, or from a goat to a sheep. "Trans-accident" would be like the hair color, the height and weight, the top speed, eye color, the sound of the voice. Whether you're sinning or not.
When there's no clear division this scheme doesn't always make any sense, but when we're talking about things like individuals as distinct from other individuals it works OK I think.
Is it? Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a way that we expect to experience, so it isn't "completely" unique. And there are two other resurrections talked about in Revelation 20 (before and after the millenium) and by Jesus in John's gospel (unto life and unto condemnation). Daniel talked about this dichotomy of resurrection results, too, but it's unclear if his both happen at the same time.
I think Daniel and Revelation are fascinating, and I agree that there is some question how many ---- I'll just call it "physical" resurrections there are. I know Christ's Resurrection was unique and that our resurrection will resemble it because of the promised new bodies and we believe Christ's risen body is a new, "spiritual" (1st Corinthians 15) body. I meant by "completely unique" that there are going to be untold millions of people returning to life all at once at the resurrection of the dead. At Christ's Resurrection it was just Him. (Those who were raised on Good Friday couldn't have preceded His unique Resurrection because He is the Firstborn from the dead.)
I am willing to agree with this idea.
OK. It's an interesting marketing idea.
Well, you were the one who brought up that idea, and I don't think other means of attaining a lack of fear of death should be trusted--because they aren't trustworthy. None of them have shown actual success in defeating death. Jesus's has.
You're coming in loud and clear now.
I think I agree with you here, although "obligatory" has negative connotations.
It does ---- but what kind of negative connotations do you mean when I declare, "Not committing adultery is obligatory"? I guess I think you mean "offensive" ---- is "don't commit adultery" offensive? I get that there is negative connotation. What if you want to commit adultery? It's obligatory for you, as a Christian, to avoid it. To flee from it, actually. But that is negative, if you just feel like you want to.
I prefer to focus on a perfection in acknowledging Him as Lord, such that we desire to do anything He wants. Thus, it might be obligatory, but it is not done because it is obligatory.
That sounds like exactly how I would think the most righteous Hebrews in the time of Jesus's Earthly ministry must have thought. They did what they had to do, and they did it with a smile, and they worked very hard to develop a reasonable explanation for how fulfilling an objective obligation could be done with a genuine smile on your face.
Some might call them "means of grace"--the things that you do, or that are done to you that "help" you to be saved. I'm not comfortable with the idea, because it seems to put the saving power of Christ's death, into which we are baptized, on a par with liturgy, as you call it. Perhaps one is having faith that the act of baptism is what saves, rather than the expression of the complete immersion in the Spirit's power and mission. I'm not sure I'm being very clear here.
We just believe Catechism Text 1257 "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments."
