N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Divine Flesh? Are you Mormon or Apollinarinian?
- Status
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Don’t be absurd. I am Catholic.Divine Flesh? Are you Mormon or Apollinarinian?
Jesus Christ through the hypostatic union with the Godhead through the 2nd Person has a Resurrected Body that is a divinized and transfigured flesh.
In christening yourself through the moniker of “Non Serviam” (the Latin phrase “meaning I will not serve” was spoken by Satan as he refused to serve ) are you professing your kinship to Lucifer or Satan; or just serving yourself by putting your foot in your own mouth?
Please don’t try to divert the thread from the topic through ad-hominem condescension.
James
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
You may be a Catholic, but your vocabulary wasn’t.Don’t be absurd. I am Catholic.
Jesus Christ through the hypostatic union with the Godhead through the 2nd Person has a Resurrected Body that is a divinized and transfigured flesh.
In christening yourself through the moniker of “Non Serviam” (the Latin phrase “meaning I will not serve” was spoken by Satan as he refused to serve ) are you professing your kinship to Lucifer or Satan; or just serving yourself by putting your foot in your own mouth?
Please don’t try to divert the thread from the topic through ad-hominem condescension.
James
Divine flesh isn’t a term used by the ECF’s. It is however used by Apollinarius to explain his conept of Christ, which was condemned by the Catholic church. Likewise the LDS church teaches that their “god” possessed a body of flesh as we do.
I’m very familiar with the hypostatic union-the flesh comes in on the human side of the equation.
Your use of transfigured has more historical support. Other terms used by the ECF’s include glorified, immaculate, spotless, and rarely “divinized” with its particular theological nuancing found in the East. Yet even this term is used infrequently to avoid misleading others down the “divine flesh” path.
My response could have been more measured, but I must confess that I was shocked to see a Catholic using such a term and reacted faster than I should have. My apologies.
It is interesting that you brought up ad hominem arguments and then went on to use one to respond to me. Unlike my infamous namesake, my refusal to serve is directed to the bishop of Rome, rather than God.
Regardless, trying to defend transubstantiation by arguing for “divine flesh” puts you outside the bounds of Catholic belief. If you don’t choose to accept the correction from me, ask a knowledgeable Catholic on the board whose fidelity to Rome you accept.
Have a good day.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
No one mentioned Cor but I did write that the spirit and the body are not separable… else the body is not living but dies… so since we know Jesus is resurrected and lives then where ever His spirit is there too must His body also be.
But, it’s great to have that taught explicitly in scripture such that we have the doctrine both from independent reason and from the deposit of faith. So thanks, it adds much to the apology I presented.
J
JReducation
Guest
Just to clarify terms here. There are two terms often used in Christology.
Hypostatic union: the union of the divine and human natures in the second person of the Trinity. The two natures are united and inseparable, however they do not blend. Christ subsists in both natures as defined by the Council of Chalcedon.
Homoousious,: is an acient Greek term used by the Fathers to refer to Christ. Literally it means consubstantial with the Father defined by the Council of Nicea. Christ is of the same divine substance as the Father, but he is not the Father.
We do not traditionally speak of divine flesh, but of a glorified body after the resurrection and in the Eucharist.
JR
Hypostatic union: the union of the divine and human natures in the second person of the Trinity. The two natures are united and inseparable, however they do not blend. Christ subsists in both natures as defined by the Council of Chalcedon.
Homoousious,: is an acient Greek term used by the Fathers to refer to Christ. Literally it means consubstantial with the Father defined by the Council of Nicea. Christ is of the same divine substance as the Father, but he is not the Father.
We do not traditionally speak of divine flesh, but of a glorified body after the resurrection and in the Eucharist.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to be careful how we interpret Paul. Paul is not speaking of a literally spiritualized body. This was a term that Paul used to mean glorified. Christ’s glorified body was fully physical. We see this in the latter parts of the gospel and early references in Acts refer to Christ eating. This was deliberatey inserted by the writers to make it clear that Christ was not a spirit, but a physical person.
That being said, this person had glorious attributes, such as the ability to pass through walls and make himself appear and disappear at will, such as the when he meets the apostles on the road to Emaus. He does a very physical act, he breaks bread with them and then disappears.
What is interesting in the story of Emaus is that they recognize him in the breaking of the bread, which Jesus had fortold in John would be the sign or proof of his divinity. Observe that they don’t recognize the stranger who is walking with them. They recognize Christ in the bread that he gives them, which is the Eucharist he then becomes visible to them, only through the bread.
Therefore the bread was not ordinary bread. The stranger who hid his identity from visual recognition revealed his identity through the bread. This is the promise that Jesus had made in John 6.
JR
G
Good_Fella
Guest
He is Johannine.Divine Flesh? Are you Mormon or Apollinarinian?
“And the Word became flesh.” {John 1, 14}
Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” {Revelation 19 , 9}
I don’t think he means that flesh is a divine attribute. It’s a physical attribute possessed by man which God became at the Incarnation. A divine Person took on a human nature and a physical body, which is now glorified in heaven.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Re: divine flesh
CFLJ did not use the term as Non Serviam quotes it. CFLJ did not capitalize it. NS did. It is not the same term in the lower case. When CFLJ says divine flesh it seems to me that he means it in the same way that we mean Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of a person who is divine such that it is correct to say she is the mother of God. Like wise, the body of Jesus is part of a divine person such that it is not wrong to say that the flesh belongs to the divine Christ, or that this flesh is the flesh of God.
Re: Cannibalism and the Eucharist
It is true that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ yet eating this gift of Himself is not cannibalism for two reasons. First, the Eucharist is not just the body and blood of Christ. It is also His soul and divinity. In other words it is Christ in His entirety. Cannibalism is eating the flesh of another of the same kind. Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, is of the same kind as the Father. Also, these four aspects (body, blood, soul and divinity) of Jesus are present under the appearances of bread and wine. Since the appearances, act upon the senses eating the Eucharist cannot be construed as cannibalism. The experience of receiving the Eucharist… the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut… denies that it is flesh and yet we consent that it is His flesh. Were it not for the accidents of bread and wine our senses would confirm flesh for us and the world would see us eating it and be outraged. But as providence would have have it, the world sees bread and wine and the only ones outraged are those who condemn without the consent that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. How can the non-believer call it cannibalism if he does not believe what it is? And if he does believe what it is how can he reconcile himself not to eat it? In short those who do not believe have no right to make such accusations since since they do not believe, and those who do believe would not make any accusations.
CFLJ did not use the term as Non Serviam quotes it. CFLJ did not capitalize it. NS did. It is not the same term in the lower case. When CFLJ says divine flesh it seems to me that he means it in the same way that we mean Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of a person who is divine such that it is correct to say she is the mother of God. Like wise, the body of Jesus is part of a divine person such that it is not wrong to say that the flesh belongs to the divine Christ, or that this flesh is the flesh of God.
Re: Cannibalism and the Eucharist
It is true that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ yet eating this gift of Himself is not cannibalism for two reasons. First, the Eucharist is not just the body and blood of Christ. It is also His soul and divinity. In other words it is Christ in His entirety. Cannibalism is eating the flesh of another of the same kind. Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, is of the same kind as the Father. Also, these four aspects (body, blood, soul and divinity) of Jesus are present under the appearances of bread and wine. Since the appearances, act upon the senses eating the Eucharist cannot be construed as cannibalism. The experience of receiving the Eucharist… the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut… denies that it is flesh and yet we consent that it is His flesh. Were it not for the accidents of bread and wine our senses would confirm flesh for us and the world would see us eating it and be outraged. But as providence would have have it, the world sees bread and wine and the only ones outraged are those who condemn without the consent that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. How can the non-believer call it cannibalism if he does not believe what it is? And if he does believe what it is how can he reconcile himself not to eat it? In short those who do not believe have no right to make such accusations since since they do not believe, and those who do believe would not make any accusations.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
I would like to clarify something in my last post before it gets misunderstood and things get wildly out of hand.
The Eucharist is what it is regardless of what we believe and whether or not we consent to what it is. In other words, the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Period. None of our belief or lack of belief can change that (that would be relativism). Our consent/belief does however, have an impact on the credibility of an argument for or against cannibalism. It requires a conditional statement that is short sided, “if it is true then you are a cannibal. If it is false then you are deluded.” Even conceptually, the argument fails since the accidents remain integrally part of the Eucharist. It is not like a hamburger where bread and meat are side by side. It is something entirely unique and different than anything else on Earth. That uniqueness separates us from being entirely the same as it. Conversely the difference does not separate Jesus from being one of us… let me explain. Christ is the only being who is fully divine and fully human. His flesh therefore is uniquely hypostatic. Since it is hypostatic and we are not it cannot be considered cannibalistic to consume it… because we in our entirety are different than the Eucharist in its entirety. You see, Christ’s flesh is the same as ours but we are not begotten of the Father as Christ is, so we are not entirely the same as He. Not being the same nature as He, when we consume Him we cannot be cannibals. It is not man eating man. It is man eating God-man.
The Eucharist is what it is regardless of what we believe and whether or not we consent to what it is. In other words, the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Period. None of our belief or lack of belief can change that (that would be relativism). Our consent/belief does however, have an impact on the credibility of an argument for or against cannibalism. It requires a conditional statement that is short sided, “if it is true then you are a cannibal. If it is false then you are deluded.” Even conceptually, the argument fails since the accidents remain integrally part of the Eucharist. It is not like a hamburger where bread and meat are side by side. It is something entirely unique and different than anything else on Earth. That uniqueness separates us from being entirely the same as it. Conversely the difference does not separate Jesus from being one of us… let me explain. Christ is the only being who is fully divine and fully human. His flesh therefore is uniquely hypostatic. Since it is hypostatic and we are not it cannot be considered cannibalistic to consume it… because we in our entirety are different than the Eucharist in its entirety. You see, Christ’s flesh is the same as ours but we are not begotten of the Father as Christ is, so we are not entirely the same as He. Not being the same nature as He, when we consume Him we cannot be cannibals. It is not man eating man. It is man eating God-man.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
We can see a similar thing happen when we combine elements that become one compound. Hydrogen and Oxygen are different elements naturally occurring in the greatest amounts as gasses. Yet when combined they become water. Sodium and Chloride are unique elements but when combined they become salt. When the divine nature became one with human nature, when the Son/God became man, He became the God-man. When I drink water or eat salt, no one says you’re eating chloride or you’re drinking oxygen… they refer to the compound not the not the individual elements. Yes some may say you are eating sodium and that is where the analogy ends. For our bodies take apart the individual elements of salt and water and all foods except for the Eucharist. Our bodies do not separate the human from the divine because they are inseparable and entire even in the smallest amount. And we do not make the Eucharist part of us, we do not assimilate it but it changes us… it makes us more like itself… it makes us more like Christ. No purely human flesh can do this, and so no human who consumes the Eucharist can be considered a cannibal.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic area of Cannibalism?
I apologize for reciprocating in the appearance of an ad-hominium excursion. It’s always hard to ascertain the substance of a matter from its outward appearance is it not? I thought I’d *flesh *you out a bit
. But you have to admit that at face value your moniker and tone reflects a defiant and firm choice in who you hold as a role model. I was giving you the opportunity to consider if you realized that your comment seemed to be serving yourself a portion of contradictory self-defiance and to examine if that was not a self defeating form of cannibalism itself. You are after all made of human flesh and seem to abhor Vicar(ious) authority, yes?This entire area of Christology remains a great paradox and mystery to me just as it does to the superior Church at large. I am only one member of mother Church. My personal insights are always subordinate to The Church. If I misspeak or express myself wrongly I remain Catholic unless I deliberately contradict Teaching in areas deemed infallible. I would not offer opinion unless I did not believe that this whole area remains veiled in mystery and is not a fully resolved teaching.
Frankly, my own understanding in this area is a work in progress and I remain open to resolving my own inner voice in this area. Part of why I participate in these forums is to benefit from insights of other Catholics. Ironically it’s those who oppose The Church (such as yourself) that compel me to learn more. This is an advanced subject and I am more focused on the message of Christ than I am on the academics of His Christology. I sometimes wonder of Christ knows Himself to be all the things that the academics make Him.
Generally speaking, within the veil of mystery where the limits of human intellect and understanding bump into things supernatural and divine I think we can often trip over doctrinal nuances more as a consequence of our vocabulary than anything else. I think when we start mixing English language concepts intimately with Greek concepts (hypostatic union) that are expressed and mentally held in the inner-voice of our cultural experiential semantic we can’t help but encounter conceptual artifacts or accidentals that arise from co-joined language semantics. I admit that I am no scholar in this area. I rely on the Holy Spirit with The Church for what I need at this station of my life. My perspective is that the underlying philosophies from which our “Church language” semantics derive are “all in the family” as “cousins” so to speak (we are after all the Universal Church). But while having Teaching we don’t have perfect unity of individual conceptualization any more so than we yet have perfect unity in The Church on other more mundane matters. I never quite understood why the Holy Spirit elected to bring the gift of tongues rather than give a “common ear” that hears in the universal lingua-franca of “spiritual tongue”. Perhaps this is too intimate though and is only reserved onto God Himself ( Romans 8:26 …but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groaning too deep for words). God’s ways are mysterious.
The Church has now progressed certainly well beyond Babel and is building on the cornerstone of “The Word”. But my feelings are that to get to the deeper understandings it’s probably going to prove inadequate for Catholics to arrive at something more holistic by juxtaposing a collection of nuanced foreign concepts together as if making an adorning necklace through a single-threaded syntax of language constructs. Clearly some things discernable at the frontiers of flesh-spirit exist well outside of our human perceptions and experience but straddle partially into the reach of our intellectual minds. So I personally think we must accept the reality that there remain things that are well outside the bandwidth and planarity of linguistics that simply can’t be spoken without imparting color or understating the truth. Implicit with admission of “mystery” is the invitation to “seek and find”. I assert that it’s simply not possible for a human voice to phrase concurrents idea with a language that reads sequentially top-to-bottom and left-to-right anymore so that it’s possible to sing a triad-cord with only one tongue. Although “the serpent” is generally believed capable of producing a pleasant sound from two discordant and orthogonal ideas from its single split tongue.
[Continued]
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
[Continued from above]
All I know from my own natural insights is that divinity arc’d within a human corpus must by consequence of locality permeate the created co-joined flesh in such a manner that the flesh must itself at least take on virtuous attributes in the same principal manner that the Eucharist is transubstantiated and is no longer the substance of Bread and Wine and retains only the appearance of it. The trouble we get into is in our definition of “divine” being defined in the negative sense in the term “uncreated”. My position is that we have much more than simple co-location going on with Jesus and His divinity. God can do whatever He wants and will not be bound by simple word definitions. No doubt if God wanted to He could somehow manage to find a way to create Himself to fix the semantic impasse and to confound the scholars. But I am not inwardly comfortable with an ambrosia notion of Eucharist since that implies that an impersonal and divine virtue can be imparted by simple fact of possession - worthy or not. There is a co-joined relational aspect at work as well in Eucharist since we are dealing with the triad of body/blood, soul and divinity. In the Eucharist we are invited not to be possessed but to consent to being co-joined to divinity through Jesus through a progressive nurturing, nourishing and life sustaining relationship - if we remain worthy.
Peace,
James
All I know from my own natural insights is that divinity arc’d within a human corpus must by consequence of locality permeate the created co-joined flesh in such a manner that the flesh must itself at least take on virtuous attributes in the same principal manner that the Eucharist is transubstantiated and is no longer the substance of Bread and Wine and retains only the appearance of it. The trouble we get into is in our definition of “divine” being defined in the negative sense in the term “uncreated”. My position is that we have much more than simple co-location going on with Jesus and His divinity. God can do whatever He wants and will not be bound by simple word definitions. No doubt if God wanted to He could somehow manage to find a way to create Himself to fix the semantic impasse and to confound the scholars. But I am not inwardly comfortable with an ambrosia notion of Eucharist since that implies that an impersonal and divine virtue can be imparted by simple fact of possession - worthy or not. There is a co-joined relational aspect at work as well in Eucharist since we are dealing with the triad of body/blood, soul and divinity. In the Eucharist we are invited not to be possessed but to consent to being co-joined to divinity through Jesus through a progressive nurturing, nourishing and life sustaining relationship - if we remain worthy.
Peace,
James
J
JReducation
Guest
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Some clarifications are still needed. Thank you for your patience while I refine these points.
in the same way that we mean Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God, such that it is correct to say she is the mother of God…
…When the divine nature became **joined **with human nature, when the Son/God became man, He became the God-man…
Replace with:
in the same way that we mean Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God, such that it is correct to say she is the mother of God…
Replace with:
…When the divine nature became **joined **with human nature, when the Son/God became man, He became the God-man…
J
JReducation
Guest
This is an essential point to this discussion. If we approach the topic of this thread from the other side of the coin, Jesus’ origins, we arrive at the same point that John does in chapter 6. He begins with the pre-existent Logos in the Prologue as his first argument in favour of Jesus’ divine nature. However, in the same prologue he emphasizes that the Word becomes flesh and enters the world, but that the world did not welcome him.
Now let’s look at why the world doesn’t welcome him. He is a contradiction. The contradiction comes out of the closet in John 6. Jesus is the God-Man. As son of Mary he is human (flesh). As God he can transcend the rules of physics. He can offer his flesh as food.
The statement below is the summary of the mystery called the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The Jesus of history is a man, son of Mary. The Christ of faith is God, also son of Mary, because he’s the same person, without distinction or separation. It is the son of Mary who offers to give his body and blood as real food and drink that surpasses that which the Israelites received in the desert.
This is what confounded the Jews of his time and why they walked away. They could only see the Jesus of history. Only those who had faith could see the Christ of faith. The ability to see the God-Man in Jesus Christ is a gift of faith, given to all, but not easy for all to digest. Therefore, not all can consume it, not because it has not been offered, but because to many it’s a contradiction that they cannot accept.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
JR, not tonight. Late here and I’d rather not get too much further into this since it puts us at risk of getting far afield of topic and into the realms of Christology.This part confused me. Can you clarify?
Thanks,
JR
Peace,
James
M
maryj
Guest
Excellent points. I thought of this thread this morning at Mass when father was talking about the transfiguration. Peter, John and James were given the gift of seeing Christ as he appears when glorified, a metamorphisus (sp?) the same but different. Just how lucky are we that we receive an even "better"gift of receiving His glorified body. They saw, we receive, but for the same reason. We are strengthened, so were they. Praise God.We have to be careful how we interpret Paul. Paul is not speaking of a literally spiritualized body. This was a term that Paul used to mean glorified. Christ’s glorified body was fully physical. We see this in the latter parts of the gospel and early references in Acts refer to Christ eating. This was deliberatey inserted by the writers to make it clear that Christ was not a spirit, but a physical person.
That being said, this person had glorious attributes, such as the ability to pass through walls and make himself appear and disappear at will, such as the when he meets the apostles on the road to Emaus. He does a very physical act, he breaks bread with them and then disappears.
What is interesting in the story of Emaus is that they recognize him in the breaking of the bread, which Jesus had fortold in John would be the sign or proof of his divinity. Observe that they don’t recognize the stranger who is walking with them. They recognize Christ in the bread that he gives them, which is the Eucharist he then becomes visible to them, only through the bread.
Therefore the bread was not ordinary bread. The stranger who hid his identity from visual recognition revealed his identity through the bread. This is the promise that Jesus had made in John 6.
JR
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
James,Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic area of Cannibalism?
I apologize for reciprocating in the appearance of an ad-hominium excursion. It’s always hard to ascertain the substance of a matter from its outward appearance is it not? I thought I’d *flesh *you out a bit
(trimmed for reasons of space)
James
Thanks for replying. I recognize that it can be difficult here as a Catholic poster. There is the church’s position to represent as well as one’s own beliefs in areas of faith where the church hasn’t ruled authoritatively, and like any follower there is a desire to gain further insight and to grow more deeply in Christ’s mysteries.
I on the other hand have to present only my beliefs and defend them without worrying about what others have said. Of course that also means that I don’t have admin help when doing research.
I’ll wait and see if you do break out another thread on cannibalism or one of the other topics in your post before replying-I agree we should try to stay on topic here.
Having said that I must admit that I’m rather impressed with JR’s spin on Emmaus referenced in the post above-it’s one of those verses that I’ve always found “less than clear” whenever one tried to understand it beyond the basic meaning of the words (i.e. the disciples didn’t recognize Jesus and then they did). The “why’s” and “how’s” of the recognition have made for much speculation over time. My favourite interpretation has always been simply that Jesus used the same “formula” that He used during the last supper and they recognized Him as a result.
I’ll give this some thought.
Thanks to both of you.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
NS,
I think there is merit to this idea… what if Jesus said some thing like, “take this and eat it, this is my body given up for you.” That would be something unique which I doubt they ever heard from anyone else but Jesus at that time. One of the very interesting things about the road to Emmaus is that on the journey Jesus prepares their hearts for the breaking of the bread. He explains Moses and the prophets to them in a way they had not completely understood. In the Mass this is equivalent to the Liturgy of the word, where we read OT and NT, then the priest explains it in homily. All of this is a preparation to receive the Eucharist. You see, what we have in the road to Emmaus story is first the Liturgy of the Word on the road with Christ, then the Liturgy of the Eucharist at table with Christ.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Thanks.
It made more sense to me than some of the interpretations that had Jesus “cloaking” and “decloaking” His appearance for no good reason.
I’ve also thought that this meeting helped set the tone for the description of the meetings of the early church in Acts 2:
Acts 2:42:
In other words that Jesus was showing them how to do things in His post-Resurrection assembly.
I find JR’s theory worthy of consideration-I’m going to give it some thought.
- Status