The Incarnational Church
The truth of the matter is this: the eternal God, the almighty God, the God who is outside of all time and space, the God who is immortal and invisible actually became both mortal and visible, entered into time and confined Himself to space, emptied Himself, took on human nature, and became the only eternal being to intersect with the temporal world.
That is what the Incarnation means.
It means that this uncontainable source of existence bound Himself up in flesh and blood, so that nature could itself become a conduit of grace. It means that spit and mud can cure blindness. It means that the touch of human fingers can cure deafness. It means that a man's robe can be touched and heal a disease.
Now, tell me this: why would God do all of this - this Incarnation thing - only to stay on the earth for 33 years, and then return to heaven so that life on earth goes back to business as usual?
This was the centerpoint of all Human history - do you mean to tell me it did not leave a major lasting mark on the earth?
No, not at all - the Incarnation is still with us, because the Body of Christ is still with us. The Church, of course, is the Body of Christ - and as the Body of Christ, it does what the Human body of Christ did while on the earth - it acts as a conduit of eternal grace by providing a material/temporal pipeline from heaven to earth.
Protestantism cannot comprehend this, for some reason.
They do not seem to realize that everything they deny of the supernatural and miraculous in Catholicism (often calling it "magic" or "superstition") is pittance when compared to what they themselves affirm about the Incarnation.
You won't accept transubstantiation - that what looks like bread can actually be, in substance, Jesus Christ's own Body - but you will accept the Incarnation - that what looks like a man about to breathe his dying breath is actually an immortal God?
Is that logical?
And how is it that I, a mere man, can speak a word ("God, forgive me") and my sins may be absolved - yet you won't accept that God could so authorize another man so that he can speak a word and bring about the same result?
The Christian faith is Incarnational. What is Eternal did once, and does still, operate through what is natural and temporal.
This is the amazing thing - that Jesus' Body on earth, the Church, is able to continue His work in the world, in His very name and with His very power. The power over nature, the power to work miracles, the power to forgive sins - because this Body is Christ's Body, and not someone else's body. The Church is one with Christ, not separate from Him - why wouldn't She be able to do as He did?
And how is the Incarnation denied first and foremost? By denying the very symbol of the Incarnation: the Madonna and Child. The woman who from all eternity was chosen by God to be the Holy Tabernacle of the Presence of God - she is removed from the picture in so many places, and her role is shuffled to the closet. Small wonder, then, that the other "woman" in the equation is also removed: Mother Church. She is turned into a non-entity.
Interesting, isn't it, how this has affected other aspects of Protestantism? They attempted to sever the marital bond between Christ and His Bride by setting up an alternate "Bride"; is it any surprise that they also now sanction human divorce and remarriage, in spite of the fact that Our Lord (and all of Christendom after Him) has prohibited it?
Or, having stripped their religion of Motherhood, is it so strange to see that their places of meeting are lacking a certain feminine touch? They seem to favor stark rooms that would better describe bachelorhood than the beautiful and ornately decorated houses of worship that betray a Mother's influence.
The Christian faith is an extension of the Incarnation; men can forgive sins; relics can bring healing; water can bring blessing and interior cleansing; oil can seal the soul; bread can become Body; blood, sweat, and tears can sanctify the soul.
Who would even want to deny any of this? Who would so wish that none of this were true, that they would argue vehemently against it?
That is what the Incarnation means.
It means that this uncontainable source of existence bound Himself up in flesh and blood, so that nature could itself become a conduit of grace. It means that spit and mud can cure blindness. It means that the touch of human fingers can cure deafness. It means that a man's robe can be touched and heal a disease.
Now, tell me this: why would God do all of this - this Incarnation thing - only to stay on the earth for 33 years, and then return to heaven so that life on earth goes back to business as usual?
This was the centerpoint of all Human history - do you mean to tell me it did not leave a major lasting mark on the earth?
No, not at all - the Incarnation is still with us, because the Body of Christ is still with us. The Church, of course, is the Body of Christ - and as the Body of Christ, it does what the Human body of Christ did while on the earth - it acts as a conduit of eternal grace by providing a material/temporal pipeline from heaven to earth.
Protestantism cannot comprehend this, for some reason.
They do not seem to realize that everything they deny of the supernatural and miraculous in Catholicism (often calling it "magic" or "superstition") is pittance when compared to what they themselves affirm about the Incarnation.
You won't accept transubstantiation - that what looks like bread can actually be, in substance, Jesus Christ's own Body - but you will accept the Incarnation - that what looks like a man about to breathe his dying breath is actually an immortal God?
Is that logical?
And how is it that I, a mere man, can speak a word ("God, forgive me") and my sins may be absolved - yet you won't accept that God could so authorize another man so that he can speak a word and bring about the same result?
The Christian faith is Incarnational. What is Eternal did once, and does still, operate through what is natural and temporal.
This is the amazing thing - that Jesus' Body on earth, the Church, is able to continue His work in the world, in His very name and with His very power. The power over nature, the power to work miracles, the power to forgive sins - because this Body is Christ's Body, and not someone else's body. The Church is one with Christ, not separate from Him - why wouldn't She be able to do as He did?
And how is the Incarnation denied first and foremost? By denying the very symbol of the Incarnation: the Madonna and Child. The woman who from all eternity was chosen by God to be the Holy Tabernacle of the Presence of God - she is removed from the picture in so many places, and her role is shuffled to the closet. Small wonder, then, that the other "woman" in the equation is also removed: Mother Church. She is turned into a non-entity.
Interesting, isn't it, how this has affected other aspects of Protestantism? They attempted to sever the marital bond between Christ and His Bride by setting up an alternate "Bride"; is it any surprise that they also now sanction human divorce and remarriage, in spite of the fact that Our Lord (and all of Christendom after Him) has prohibited it?
Or, having stripped their religion of Motherhood, is it so strange to see that their places of meeting are lacking a certain feminine touch? They seem to favor stark rooms that would better describe bachelorhood than the beautiful and ornately decorated houses of worship that betray a Mother's influence.
The Christian faith is an extension of the Incarnation; men can forgive sins; relics can bring healing; water can bring blessing and interior cleansing; oil can seal the soul; bread can become Body; blood, sweat, and tears can sanctify the soul.
Who would even want to deny any of this? Who would so wish that none of this were true, that they would argue vehemently against it?
<< Home