Confused about Archbishop Sheen's Speeches

[YoungCatholic86]

I absolutely love Archbishop Sheen’s way of communicating the faith but I am a little bit confused about a couple things he has said. I attached a link to part of the speech here.

youtube.com/watch?v=4_-4Pj5LsOA&feature=endscreen

He says in it that when the consecration happens we are supposed to say that “this is my body as well.” Isn’t that against what the church teaches, meaning that it is only Christ present in the Eucharist?

youtube.com/watch?v=kgQ_YQCZRFM

He basically says in this video that since Mary is the a representation of the Church, she is married in a sense to Christ. Isn’t that also against what the Church teaches since Mary was married to St. Joseph (unless he had already passed on by the time of the Crucifixion)? Even if St. Joseph had passed on though, wouldn’t it still be weird to say that Mary, Jesus’ mother is now his spouse?

I appreciate all feedback that anyone wants to give

 

[Gods_Peace]

Their hearts are married, making one Holy Heart. The Holy Spirit is wedded to Her Spirit. She is the uniquest creation that God crafted with his heart. And she also really loves her children, as we can tell by her intercession!

 

[YoungCatholic86]

Their hearts are married, making one Holy Heart. The Holy Spirit is wedded to Her Spirit. She is the uniquest creation that God crafted with his heart. And she also really loves her children, as we can tell by her intercession!

It just seems odd to me because the concept of marriage is that two become one flesh. Doesn’t that logic mean that Mary would be equal to God (which the CCC states is false)? Please know I do love our mother but I am just confused as to why Archbishop Sheen says that she is married to Christ. Thank you for answering by the way. I was starting to wonder why this post had so many views and had no responses

Also, do you have an answer for the first question?

 

[sllhouette]

I absolutely love Archbishop Sheen’s way of communicating the faith but I am a little bit confused about a couple things he has said. I attached a link to part of the speech here.

youtube.com/watch?v=4_-4Pj5LsOA&feature=endscreen

He says in it that when the consecration happens we are supposed to say that “this is my body as well.” Isn’t that against what the church teaches, meaning that it is only Christ present in the Eucharist?

youtube.com/watch?v=kgQ_YQCZRFM

He basically says in this video that since Mary is the a representation of the Church, she is married in a sense to Christ. Isn’t that also against what the Church teaches since Mary was married to St. Joseph (unless he had already passed on by the time of the Crucifixion)? Even if St. Joseph had passed on though, wouldn’t it still be weird to say that Mary, Jesus’ mother is now his spouse?

I appreciate all feedback that anyone wants to give

Not a scholar here, but I am pretty sure that if someone was to claim that we received the priest in the Eucharist, that person would be wrong (or you misunderstood).

Yes, some of that is said kind of confusingly. When a priest says mass he is said to be in Persona Christi. That means that he is acting in the person of Christ. Only Christ is present in the Eucharist. I could see though that when a priest says “this is my body” he sincerely means that. But it is only true to the extent that he is acting in the person of Christ. This could also mean that as the priest offers the body of Christ, he also offers his own life.

Mary has always been seen as the new eve. I think it would be more appropriate to say that mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Evan]

It is my body also, because I am a member of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. I have put on Christ via my baptism, so I am joined with him in his death an resurrection.

There are many levels to look at different things. One thing have been reflecting on lately is the substance of Christ. For in the Eucharist, the accidents of his body are not present, but the substance (which include Body Blood Soul and Divinity) are.

Is the substance of Christ also in the Mystical Body of Christ… the Church?
In the priest acting* in persona Christi*?
In the word being proclaimed by the lector and received by the faithful?

Did not Jesus say to St Paul: “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?” and was he substantially present in the early church?

 

[jwinch2]

Mary has always been seen as the new eve. I think it would be more appropriate to say that mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Mary as the new Eve goes all the way back to St. Justin Martyr, and is by many to be the foundation of all Marian doctrines. As early as the second century, perhaps earlier, Christians were referring to Mary in this way. When St. Justin wrote his apology, he discussed Mary as the new Eve as if it was already known which has led some to speculate that this understanding originates sometime in the first century.

I have also heard later theologians, (De Montfort perhaps?), state that Mary is also the spouse of the Holy Spirit since the act leading to conception is the union between husband and wife. That one is a bit tougher for me to get my head around. Since the Spirit, the Father, and the Son are one, things get a bit dicey. I’m sure it is theologically correct but it takes a bit more in the way of mental gymnastics to make it work for me.

 

[Obsculta]

#1) I agree with Evan about the Mystical Body.

#2) And agree with Jason . As for the Bride of Christ, its rather like St. Louis de Montfort who often makes reference to Mary as the bride of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit making St. Joseph more a step father. You might find this an interesting read Mary, the Bride of God

 

[Mintaka]

Bishop Sheen is talking poetically, typologically, and using beautiful paradoxes to create wonder and delight.

You aren’t hearing him the way he’s talking.

Think about a nun, say, Mother Angelica. In a sense, she’s a Bride of Christ. But she’s not a bride the same way that Mother Church is Christ’s spotless Bride.

However, as a member of the Church, she is part of the Bride and a member of Christ’s Body. By taking vows and serving only Him for the rest of her life, she enters even more deeply into being part of the Bride.

Now, if this bothered you, you could do like some medieval theologians and specify that Mother Angelica is only a concubine of Christ. But although that’s fun for explicating Psalm 44/45, it’s not very dignified for a Christian woman, and it would have connotations that are unfortunate.

So when we talk about nuns being Brides of Christ, we are choosing a certain level of Types and sticking with it, rather than demanding that all levels be constantly kept in mind in the same way across all levels.

In a way, Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Bride of the Holy Spirit. In another way, she represents Christ’s Bride – in another way, she’s more the mother of the Bride; and of course she’s mostly the mother of the Bridegroom.

And yes, Christ lives in us, so we offer ourselves up as part of the Offertory prayer, and so in a way His Body is also ours. And sometimes it’s useful to think about that paradox, while other times it’s not useful.

I hope this helped. If it didn’t, here’s my advice. If an image or Type doesn’t help you, or confuses you, you don’t have to think about it. Just put it aside for later.

 

[JimG]

He does say (in the first video) that he is speaking of the secondary meaning of “This is my body,” not the primary meaning, which we all know. Because we unite ourselves with Christ, we can say with him, ‘this is my body too.’ I die with Christ, dying to my sins, with him. It’s a secondary meaning, as he said. And he goes on to say that in receiving communion, we have life because of him.

Archbishop Sheen in his homilies often mixes doctrine, metaphor, spirituality, and piety. If you listen carefully, you can distinguish the many levels on which he is speaking. And that’s a good thing. The Eucharist is not merely a doctrine which can be explicated in a sentence or two. The levels of meaning are quite inexhaustible.

 

[sllhouette]

Mary as the new Eve goes all the way back to St. Justin Martyr, and is by many to be the foundation of all Marian doctrines. As early as the second century, perhaps earlier, Christians were referring to Mary in this way. When St. Justin wrote his apology, he discussed Mary as the new Eve as if it was already known which has led some to speculate that this understanding originates sometime in the first century.

I have also heard later theologians, (De Montfort perhaps?), state that Mary is also the spouse of the Holy Spirit since the act leading to conception is the union between husband and wife. That one is a bit tougher for me to get my head around. Since the Spirit, the Father, and the Son are one, things get a bit dicey. I’m sure it is theologically correct but it takes a bit more in the way of mental gymnastics to make it work for me.

Yes, I read that Mary is the Daughter of God the Father, The spouse of the holy spirit, and the mother of Christ.