tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post3201180520947299026..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: A Sarxual Revolution for the Church?Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-51508574337050448692009-08-22T15:48:07.000+10:002009-08-22T15:48:07.000+10:00"Sarxual" is perfect, both for its aptne..."Sarxual" is perfect, both for its aptness for contemporary use and its theological power, reminding us of the crucial (!) distinction between Christian holiness and so much other do-good-to-feel-good-spirituality. Thanks, JimJimhttp://hopelens.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-85178776238804515032009-08-23T01:39:35.000+10:002009-08-23T01:39:35.000+10:00I agree with Joshua,the term "spirirtuality&q...I agree with Joshua,the term "spirirtuality" is not only antinomian,but is also the buzzword of the new agers and those who cannot bring themselves to say 'religion".Matthiasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-76416230215307434412009-08-21T00:11:08.000+10:002009-08-21T00:11:08.000+10:00Brilliant stuff, David.I like “sarxual”, but the w...Brilliant stuff, David.<br><br>I like “sarxual”, but the word you are looking for <i>could</i> be “material”, i.e. solid. fleshly, composed of your actual atoms and molecules. Of course, materiality is a quality no possessed by us alone, but shared with animals, plants, rocks, etc, but isn’t that the point? Or at least part of it? The problem with “sarxuality” is that if it is only used of us – and it will be – then it must have connotations of something that is unique, special to humans. <br><br>“Carnal” would do if it wasn’t a bit old-fashioned. As you point out, it has negative connotations, but isn’t this because we are culturally infected with a false dualism, in which we elevate and honour the spiritual while downgrading and despising the material – the very tendency you are fighting against here? Maybe we need, not to try and avoid this dualism, but to confront it, reclaim carnality and assert the inherent goodness and holiness of the carnal. Carnal pride, anyone? (Now <i>there’s</i> an idea for reclaiming Mardi Gras.)<br><br>This is all about the Incarnation, of course. (There’s that “carn-“ word again.) The atoms and molecules of the Body of Christ weren’t – I should say, aren’t – “special” atoms and molecules. Or, at least, they are no more “special” than the atoms and molecules of of the body of David or Peregrinus. Or, to put it another way, they are amazing, wonderful, incredible – imbued with divinity, miraculously elevated from mere creation to be incorporated into the Creator. That’s what the incarnation means for material creation.<br><br>The destiny to which I am called is not to “escape” my body and attain some happy, floaty, cloudy existence free of material concerns (or material anything, for that matter). I am body-and-soul, and a soul without a body is as imperfect as a body without a soul. The destiny to which I am called is to live bodily in a perfect way. Hence, the resurrection. Hence, also, the centrality and significance of my material life –my work, my actions, my health, my well-being, and the work, actions, health and well-being of others. We don’t feed the hungry or heal the sick in order to build up some kind of credit balance in a spiritual bank account somewhere. We feed the hungry and heal the sick because people should be nourished and healthy; we are helping creation to become what it should be.Peregrinusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43764173154679871692009-08-21T02:34:44.000+10:002009-08-21T02:34:44.000+10:00How about somatic?How about somatic?Thomas Pietschnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-61281429422666019972009-08-23T02:08:14.000+10:002009-08-23T02:08:14.000+10:00Yes, somatic would be a good choice...Yes, somatic would be a good choice...Joshuahttp://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-67562258129169425872009-08-24T09:29:12.000+10:002009-08-24T09:29:12.000+10:00Well, obviously that is what JPII went with - afte...Well, obviously that is what JPII went with - after all, he wrote the "Theology of the Body", not the "Theology of the Flesh". But "Flesh" and "Body" are not entirely the same thing - although obviously there is a close, but rather ill defined, association between the two ideas. "Flesh" to me sums up everything it means to be a part of the earthly creation. It is what we share with the rest of the animal world. Eg. the scriptures speak of "all flesh" to include all animal life-forms in their creatureliness. They don't speak that way about "body".Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-88522455898345368002009-08-24T09:34:41.000+10:002009-08-24T09:34:41.000+10:00Yes, I think you are right, Josh. "Sarkic&quo...Yes, I think you are right, Josh. "Sarkic" is the right form of the adjective (directly parallel to "psychic" and "pneumatic" - the latin equivalents being "animal" and "spiritual"). You would still need something to equal "spirituality", and while "carnality" would be the grammatically right equivalent for my proposed "sarxuality" (as "animality" is in relation to the psyche or anima), I just don't think that is quite right for the purpose. And besides, "sarxuality" has such a nice ring to it!Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-16408576577846720802009-08-24T09:38:32.001+10:002009-08-24T09:38:32.001+10:00IN-carnation is precisely about God (the Creator) ...IN-carnation is precisely about God (the Creator) coming into and becoming a part of his Creation. It has directionality about it. Our own existence cannot be said to be "incarnate", because we are, by nature, "carnate". By means of the wonderful exchange of the Incarnation of the Word, our carnal nature - our "sarx" - becomes "in-spirited" (or "in-spired"?) and thus capable of communion with the Holy and Divine Trinity. But it is precisely by means of this "hinge" - the flesh - that spirituality is possible or even meaningful in the pratice of the Christian religion.Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-31292622251070326942009-08-24T09:38:32.000+10:002009-08-24T09:38:32.000+10:00Exactly, Matthias. The option is given to us of &q...Exactly, Matthias. The option is given to us of "spirituality" or "religion". Me? I'll just take the Gospel, thank you very much!Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-68265384983998460772009-08-26T03:36:26.001+10:002009-08-26T03:36:26.001+10:00Very good, David.Very good, David.Louisehttp://www.pcv-louise.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-69692577479547860982009-08-26T03:36:26.000+10:002009-08-26T03:36:26.000+10:00I think I might include "spirituality" o...I think I might include "spirituality" on my index prohibitorum!Louisehttp://www.pcv-louise.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-74844846864722992752009-08-26T03:37:26.000+10:002009-08-26T03:37:26.000+10:00"I’ll just take the Gospel, thank you very mu..."I’ll just take the Gospel, thank you very much!"<br><br>Well said!Louisehttp://www.pcv-louise.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com