I have no doubt healing is meant for everyone.
I suppose I won't be hearing any of this, "hocus pocus" talk coming from you?
Depends upon what you call 'hocus-pocus (at it's root, a magi's term, so no)'. As for all the chanting, and incense and jangly-bits, and whatnot... incantations and such, I surely don't see the need for all that.
Or will we get the, "Jesus for me, but not for thee" standard fare?
Nowwaitaminnit... Wasn't it you that made the claim that Protestants 'reject the mystical and the miraculous'? That their basis is merely secular? Wouldn't that be you doing the "Jesus for me, but not for thee" schtick?
I agree. Can we come to a further understanding that healing isn't just physical but spiritual? And if we agree on that, can we go one step further and agree that Christ as our Savior who wants all of us to be with Him instituted means for us to attain that oneness with him (which also provides spiritual healing) in ways we could describe as miraculous? In other words, the sacraments such as the Eucharist and Confession?
Depends upon what you call 'hocus-pocus (at it's root, a magi's term, so no)'. As for all the chanting, and incense and jangly-bits, and whatnot... incantations and such, I surely don't see the need for all that.
To be more specific, I'm referring to this pagan babylonian goddess nonsense and the "hocus pocus" attitude towards the Eucharist. Where a protestant can chant the "magical" words of, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and they are saved, a miracle, but deny the same to the Eucharist and castigate it as some sort of medieval chant. Not to mention all of the other instances in which the protestants confuses correlation for causation and like some conspiracy theorist starts connecting dots, "Well the Catholic Church does this, and because so-and-so did this back in the day, there's some connection and its all interconnected." It's the "Who killed JFK" game, only done on a grand historical scale.
I understand you may not see the need, but are you aware that is just an expression of your own personal preference and has little bearing on what is true? Assuming that was the case, that we are all graduates of the J.S. Mill school of utilitarianism, that utility is the determiner of truth, then we can can eliminate rock concert and stadium worship and all manner of protestant expression of their faith as extraneous. No more WWJD bracelets, no more t-shirts with witty sayings adoped from secular advertising campaigns?
Or, we can say, since Christ has both a divine and a human nature understands the necessity of engaging humanity not only on a spiritual level but a physical one as well? And to join the two with Christ the sacraments where instituted? After all, we're not angels. We're not pure spirit. But try telling that to the iconoclastic protestant who is attempting to forsake their humanity for a pure spiritual existence and in their arrogance boasts that they're better than everyone else because of their transcendence. Maybe I need those stained glass windows. Maybe I need that rosary and that gregorian chant. Who is a protestant to deny those to me? If that makes me a weak Christian then so be it. That's why the argument is made that protestantism is inherently gnostic. A perfect faith for a perfect people. Very Nietzschean.
Nowwaitaminnit... Wasn't it you that made the claim that Protestants 'reject the mystical and the miraculous'? That their basis is merely secular? Wouldn't that be you doing the "Jesus for me, but not for thee" schtick?
Yes it was and yes they do. I just find it ironic that they'll accept the miraculous on their behalf but then turn around and act like uber-rationalists when it comes to the miracles of the Catholic Church and I don't think anyone can deny that is a characteristic they share with today's modern atheists. But that isn't to say they can't find Christ in their way, however imperfectly.
Remember that scene in Lord of the Rings where Gollum had a debate with himself?
Uncanny!