Son of God, Son of Man. Modes of Presence?

[Richca]

Therefore we conclude that the governance of the world, including the governing of the Church, the bestowal of graces is done by the Son of God ( along with the Father and the Holy Spirit ), minus the body of the Son of God. That is that Jesus Christ, the man, is not active in this governance but the Son of God is. If it were otherwise we would have to believe that the Son of God is physically present throughout creation, most intimately, as he is in the Eucharist. And that just doesn’t seem likely. In other words the Son of God governs with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but he need not do so through the instrumentality of the physical body of Jesus Christ.In other words the Son of God has two modes of existence, one spiritual and the other physical and he can be and is operative, simultaneously, in both modes of his existence.
Linus2nd

I don’t think we can conclude that the governance of the Church and the bestowal of graces is done by the Son of God minus the humanity of Christ. This is against the teaching of the Church, Scripture, and the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. For one thing, the sacrament of the eucharist where in we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood is a source of grace. We receive grace through the humanity of Christ.

Secondly, Pope Pius XII in the encyclical MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, on the Mystical Body of Christ, teaches that “In Him (Christ) dwells the Holy Spirit with such a fullness of grace that greater cannot be conceived,” and “from His fullness we have all received” (John 1: 16).
“Because Christ is so exalted, He alone by every right rules and governs the Church.”
“Christ must be acknowledged Head of the Church for this reason too, that, as supernatural gifts have their fullness and perfection in Him, it is of this fullness that His Mystical Body receives.”
“From Him streams into the body of the Church all the light with which those who believe are divinely illumined, and all the grace by which they are made holy as He is holy.”
"All these treasures of His divine goodness He is said to bestow on the members of His Mystical Body, not merely because He, as the Eucharistic Victim on earth and the glorified Victim in heaven, through His wounds and His prayers pleads our cause before the Eternal Father, but because He selects, He determines, He distributes every single grace to every single person “according to the measure of the giving of Christ.”

Jesus Christ is not two beings but one being, a God-Man. So, in the doctrine of Christ as head of his Mystical Body the Church, we are talking not just about the divine nature of Christ, but the whole Christ, the God-Man. Jesus Christ in his humanity, the new Adam, redeemed us by his sacrifice on the cross and the shedding of his blood. From the side of Christ asleep on the cross was born the bride of Christ, the Church, when the soldier pierced his side and out poured blood and water. Christ in his humanity merited for us all the graces we need to reach heaven and consequently it is his by right to bestow graces. The humanity of Christ is the instrument though which the bearer of that humanity, the eternal Son of God, bestows graces. Christ was and is a true man just as he is true God and just as Adam would have passed onto us the supernatural gifts that were bestowed on him by God at his creation if he had not sinned, so do we receive from Christ, the new Adam, out of his fullness of grace, all the graces and supernatural gifts we receive from God.

Another consideration pertinent here is the role our heavenly mother Mary plays in our spiritual lives. She is our mother in the order of divine grace, indeed, the Mother of Divine Grace and the Mediatrix of All Graces as well as the Queen of heaven and earth. Now, if our Blessed Lady plays such a role in the distribution of all graces, why wouldn’t her Son, the God-Man who is the redeemer of the whole human race?

Another consideration is that I don’t think we can separate the body of Christ from his soul. The soul united with the body is what comprises the humanity of Christ which is substantially united to the person of the eternal Son of God. I would agree with you that the humanity of Christ is not everywhere such as His divinity but that Christ as man whose person is none other than the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, governs and rules the Church from heaven.

I recommend reading the encyclical I mentioned above on the Mystical Body of Christ from Pope Pius XII.

I also recommend reading the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas which Pope Pius XII mentions in the above encyclical on Christ as man as head of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. St Thomas says as I mentioned in previous post “To give grace or the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ as he is God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him as man, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead.” (ST, Pt. III, Q. 8, art.1)

 

[Thomas_White]

I have written the troublesome pharse in the Creed here underlined as it should be read.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father
before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten,
not made, consubstantial with the Father;

Linus2nd

But other than the comma after the word “Lord”, this is the way the Nicene Creed now reads in the Liturgy of the Mass. It essentially represents a translation of the Latin as written in the Vulgate. I do not believe the Latin has been changed since 325 A.D.

 

[Thomas_White]

Therefore we conclude that the governance of the world, including the governing of the Church, the bestowal of graces is done by the Son of God ( along with the Father and the Holy Spirit ), minus the body of the Son of God. That is that Jesus Christ, the man, is not active in this governance but the Son of God is. If it were otherwise we would have to believe that the Son of God is physically present throughout creation, most intimately, as he is in the Eucharist. And that just doesn’t seem likely. In other words the Son of God governs with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but he need not do so through the instrumentality of the physical body of Jesus Christ.In other words the Son of God has two modes of existence, one spiritual and the other physical and he can be and is operative, simultaneously, in both modes of his existence.

Linus2nd

Here is how the part of the Nicene Creed here in question appeared prior to the latest revision:

“We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father…”

This phrase previously translated as “eternally begotten of the Father” reads this way in Latin: “et ex Patreaus natum, ante omnia saecula…” A literal translation of the phrase would be “born of the Father before all ages.” To render the translation closer to the Latin of the Vulgate, this literal translation indeed now appears in the Nicene Creed as part of the Liturgy of the Mass.

Was Christ born both of the Father and of the Virgin Mary? Of course not. I believe (and I am hardly alone) that “begotten, not made” of the Father does not imply birth as we know it in this world. It connotes rather both being and nature, but the question is: does “begotten” also connote “substance”? It does in the Latin. But it does not seem so in the earlier Greek (Gk. “monogenes”). This is the unresolved question here. And it has, for a very long time, been a difficult and complex topic.

The historical Jesus Christ appeared on the earth in a particular time and place. He spoke and taught in neither Greek nor Latin but rather in a language people could understand. I believe the phase “True God and True Man” simply uses the human model to convey an essential teaching, but this human model only goes so far. During the Last Supper, Jesus used bread and wine to represent his “body and blood”. Did this bread and wine then literally turn into physical blood and wine, and does it do so during the Consecration of the Mass? Well, what it does do, however it is, is turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The meaning here is perhaps not well understood and consequently needlessly argued. There were many different substances that Christ might have used during the Last Supper. It matters not. By the Consecration, the bread and wine (physical matter) becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ (both matter and Spirit). What is important is that the substance, whatever it is, whatever a scientist might conclude it is, and what I witnessed it is as an alter server more than half a century ago, both before and after the Consecration, is transformed by the infusion of the divinity of Christ. It IS his body and blood. The Church is insistent on this point, as it should be.

We see that in this way that the body of Christ is not limited to bread and wine. Again, I believe there is here a difficulty of language and translation involving the dichotomies, or dualities, of form and matter inherent in the Western mode of thought. As such, I believe we in the Western world would do well to go beyond the human model in our attempt to understand this teaching. It is that the phrase “body and blood” of Christ means far more than those few literal words. I believe Jesus Christ, as form and matter, or being and substance, or as body and blood, appears in the physical world as it is so willed, be it as the Eucharist or as the True God and True Man that walked the earth as the historical Jesus. From the human perspective, that there are differences between the two should be obvious, but it need not trouble us. It involves the Mystical Body of Christ and perhaps is more open to faith and contemplation than to reason.

I did err when I said in a comment that Jesus Christ was of one nature. This was a hasty comment that perhaps reflected my own thinking and involved the limits of human reason and language–in this instance, in the way we understand something. Simply stated, it concerned considering the nature of Christ, as True God and True Man, as essentially his one nature. This is largely semantics, and I think it could be expressed either way if it were understood the same thing were meant. In any event, I had earlier quoted the ‘Confession of Chalcedon’ in this context.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think we can conclude that the governance of the Church and the bestowal of graces is done by the Son of God minus the humanity of Christ.

Certainly Jesus Christ founded the Chruch and governs it as he sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven. But we know that although Christ is the cause and source of our salvation and that all our graces originate from him it is the Holy Spirit who guides and directs the Church and keeps her faithful. We also know that all graces come to us directly through the Holy Spirit. ( CCC. pars. 727-741 ), but it originates with Christ in heaven. And though it is the Holy Spirit who actually gives us the grace, the Son of God and the Father are also active. For we cannot separate the three Persons, where one acts, all three act. But at the same time we have to remember that Christ, himself, is in heaven.

This is against the teaching of the Church, Scripture, and the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

What I have said, is not against the teaching of the Chruch, the Scriptures, or the Doctrine of the Mystical Body.

For one thing, the sacrament of the eucharist where in we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood is a source of grace. We receive grace through the humanity of Christ.

If you have read all my posts here, you will see that I have not excluded the graces we receive through the Eucharist. But that grace is received from the Second Person of the Trinity dwelling in Christ’s humanity.

Secondly, Pope Pius XII in the encyclical MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, on the Mystical Body of Christ, teaches that “In Him (Christ) dwells the Holy Spirit with such a fullness of grace that greater cannot be conceived,” and “from His fullness we have all received” (John 1: 16).

Of course, and I have said nothing contrary to this. Or at least I didn’t intend to. At least you see that Christ and the Holy Spirit are operating together. And of course so is the Father - we cannot separate them, where one operates, all three operate. But at the same time, Christ governs from heaven, that is where he dwells in the flesh.

“Because Christ is so exalted, He alone by every right rules and governs the Church.”
“Christ must be acknowledged Head of the Church for this reason too, that, as supernatural gifts have their fullness and perfection in Him, it is of this fullness that His Mystical Body receives.”
“From Him streams into the body of the Church all the light with which those who believe are divinely illumined, and all the grace by which they are made holy as He is holy.”
"All these treasures of His divine goodness He is said to bestow on the members of His Mystical Body, not merely because He, as the Eucharistic Victim on earth and the glorified Victim in heaven, through His wounds and His prayers pleads our cause before the Eternal Father, but because He selects, He determines, He distributes every single grace to every single person “according to the measure of the giving of Christ.”

I don’t deny this. But again, Christ distributes these graces through the action of the Holy Spirit. Christ remains in heaven.

Jesus Christ is not two beings but one being, a God-Man. So, in the doctrine of Christ as head of his Mystical Body the Church, we are talking not just about the divine nature of Christ, but the whole Christ, the God-Man. Jesus Christ in his humanity, the new Adam, redeemed us by his sacrifice on the cross and the shedding of his blood. From the side of Christ asleep on the cross was born the bride of Christ, the Church, when the soldier pierced his side and out poured blood and water. Christ in his humanity merited for us all the graces we need to reach heaven and consequently it is his by right to bestow graces. The humanity of Christ is the instrument though which the bearer of that humanity, the eternal Son of God, bestows graces. Christ was and is a true man just as he is true God and just as Adam would have passed onto us the supernatural gifts that were bestowed on him by God at his creation if he had not sinned, so do we receive from Christ, the new Adam, out of his fullness of grace, all the graces and supernatural gifts we receive from God.

Of course. But these graces are carried to us through the Holy Spirit.

Another consideration pertinent here is the role our heavenly mother Mary plays in our spiritual lives. She is our mother in the order of divine grace, indeed, the Mother of Divine Grace and the Mediatrix of All Graces as well as the Queen of heaven and earth. …[snip]…

Of course, all I’m saying is that Christ remains in heaven.

Another consideration is that I don’t think we can separate the body of Christ from his soul. The soul united with the body is what comprises the humanity of Christ which is substantially united to the person of the eternal Son of God.

Of course. I used the term ’ body ’ to emphasize the physical aspect of Christ’s humanity.

I would agree with you that the humanity of Christ is not everywhere such as His divinity but that Christ as man whose person is none other than the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, governs and rules the Church from heaven.

Great. That is all I meant to stress. And the same applies to the governance of the daily details of the universe.

…[snip]… St Thomas says as I mentioned in previous post “To give grace or the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ as he is God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him as man, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead.” (ST, Pt. III, Q. 8, art.1)

I find it interesting that he equates grace with the Holy Spirit. I have never heard grace explained that way before.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is how the part of the Nicene Creed here in question appeared prior to the latest revision:

“We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father…”

This phrase previously translated as “eternally begotten of the Father” reads this way in Latin: “et ex Patreaus natum, ante omnia saecula…” A literal translation of the phrase would be “born of the Father before all ages.” To render the translation closer to the Latin of the Vulgate, this literal translation indeed now appears in the Nicene Creed as part of the Liturgy of the Mass.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity is eternally begotten. The problem is with the humanity of Christ. Whatever the Christological explanation, it is certain that the humanity of Christ has not existed eternally. That is why I say that this phrase does not include the humanity of Christ but is restricted to the Second Person of the Trinity who, in the fullness of time, assumed a human nature by the Virgin Mary, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Was Christ born both of the Father and of the Virgin Mary? Of course not…[snip]…[/QOTE]

Why did you include this?

The historical Jesus Christ appeared on the earth in a particular time and place. He spoke and taught in neither Greek nor Latin but rather in a language people could understand. I believe the phase “True God and True Man” simply uses the human model to convey an essential teaching, but this human model only goes so far. During the Last Supper, Jesus used bread and wine to represent his “body and blood”. Did this bread and wine then literally turn into physical blood and wine, and does it do so during the Consecration of the Mass? Well, what it does do, however it is, is turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The meaning here is perhaps not well understood and consequently needlessly argued. There were many different substances that Christ might have used during the Last Supper. It matters not. By the Consecration, the bread and wine (physical matter) becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ (both matter and Spirit). What is important is that the substance, whatever it is, whatever a scientist might conclude it is, and what I witnessed it is as an alter server more than half a century ago, both before and after the Consecration, is transformed by the infusion of the divinity of Christ. It IS his body and blood. The Church is insistent on this point, as it should be.

Agreed. But how does this fit into the discussion?

We see that in this way that the body of Christ is not limited to bread and wine. Again, I believe there is here a difficulty of language and translation involving the dichotomies, or dualities, of form and matter inherent in the Western mode of thought. As such, I believe we in the Western world would do well to go beyond the human model in our attempt to understand this teaching. It is that the phrase “body and blood” of Christ means far more than those few literal words. I believe Jesus Christ, as form and matter, or being and substance, or as body and blood, appears in the physical world as it is so willed, be it as the Eucharist or as the True God and True Man that walked the earth as the historical Jesus. From the human perspective, that there are differences between the two should be obvious, but it need not trouble us. It involves the Mystical Body of Christ and perhaps is more open to faith and contemplation than to reason.

I don’t see the point you are trying to make in reference to the discussion. The Mystical Body has nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make.

did err when I said in a comment that Jesus Christ was of one nature. This was a hasty comment that perhaps reflected my own thinking and involved the limits of human reason and language–in this instance, in the way we understand something. Simply stated, it concerned considering the nature of Christ, as True God and True Man, as essentially his one nature. This is largely semantics, and I think it could be expressed either way if it were understood the same thing were meant. In any event, I had earlier quoted the ‘Confession of Chalcedon’ in this context.

I understand.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Second Person of the Trinity is eternally begotten. The problem is with the humanity of Christ. Whatever the Christological explanation, it is certain that the humanity of Christ has not existed eternally. That is why I say that this phrase does not include the humanity of Christ but is restricted to the Second Person of the Trinity who, in the fullness of time, assumed a human nature by the Virgin Mary, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Linus2nd

I think this perhaps involves the way the word “body” is understood. I thought a more expanded meaning was perhaps necessary, and this is what I was trying to get at in the passages you quoted. Essentially, what I meant involves the following: Is it not true that the body (and blood) of Christ was present both in the historical Jesus, True God and True man, and in the Consecrated bread and wine of the Last Supper? In other words, it would seem the “body” of Christ is not necessarily limited to physical existence as the body of a human being. Like the bread and wine of the Last Supper, the Eucharist of today’s Mass is also the body and blood of Christ.

Again, this is a matter of translation and language, I think. I agree the concept is not taught, or at least not very well explained, in the catechisms used in schools. The terminology is confusing, particularly when it is limited to the human model. While it can be said that the humanity of Christ has not existed eternally, I’m not so sure this is true of what is meant by the “body of Christ”.

A problem is the question of how and when does this Second Nature of Christ occur when Christ is the Only Begotten (and not made) Son of the Father? I believe it perhaps involves the nature of the Trinity, where Christ is eternally begotten of the Father but “conceived” by the Holy Spirit. But it is a separate question.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think this perhaps involves the way the word “body” is understood. I thought a more expanded meaning was perhaps necessary, and this is what I was trying to get at in the passages you quoted. Essentially, what I meant involves the following: Is it not true that the body (and blood) of Christ was present both in the historical Jesus, True God and True man, and in the Consecrated bread and wine of the Last Supper?

This is all true, yes.

In other words, it would seem the “body” of Christ is not necessarily limited to physical existence as the body of a human being. Like the bread and wine of the Last Supper, the Eucharist of today’s Mass is also the body and blood of Christ.

Christ’s human nature requires a body, whether as he walked the earth 2,000 years ago, as in the Eucharist, or as he dwells in his glorified body now in heaven. We cannot separate Christ from his human nature in my view. But the Second Person has always been able to dwell in an assumed human nature or as a spirit in union with the Father and the Holy spirit. I don’t see how the human nature could exist eternally in the past, I don’t think that is how the passage should be interpreted. The only possibility I can see here is that the passage is applying the title " Christ " to the Son of God before his actual Incarnation. In other words, to the spiritual mode of existence of the Second Person, and again at the Incarnation. But I have never seen an explanation of the passage. Where is a theologian when you need one!!!

Again, this is a matter of translation and language, I think. I agree the concept is not taught, or at least not very well explained, in the catechisms used in schools. The terminology is confusing, particularly when it is limited to the human model. While it can be said that the humanity of Christ has not existed eternally, I’m not so sure this is true of what is meant by the “body of Christ”.

I can’t believe there isn’t an answer to this. But whatever it is, if we are speaking of human nature, we must include the body.

A problem is the question of how and when does this Second Nature of Christ occur when Christ is the Only Begotten (and not made) Son of the Father? I believe it perhaps involves the nature of the Trinity, where Christ is eternally begotten of the Father but “conceived” by the Holy Spirit. But it is a separate question.

No, I don’t think it is a separate question. It is at the very heart of the question, or it is at least a part of the question. This is a very good point you raise here. Perhaps someone is watching who knows the answer?

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Originally posted by Richca
…[snip]… St Thomas says as I mentioned in previous post “To give grace or the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ as he is God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him as man, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead.” (ST, Pt. III, Q. 8, art.1)

I find it interesting that he equates grace with the Holy Spirit. I have never heard grace explained that way before.

Linus2nd

Just to clarify, in the quote from St Thomas above, he is not equating grace with the Holy Spirit if we consider grace under the aspect of sanctifying grace which St Thomas says is something created by God and infused into the soul. He says “To give grace or the Holy Spirit.” Of course, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

 

[Richca]

Originally posted by Thomas White:
In other words, it would seem the “body” of Christ is not necessarily limited to physical existence as the body of a human being. Like the bread and wine of the Last Supper, the Eucharist of today’s Mass is also the body and blood of Christ.

Linus:
Christ’s human nature requires a body, whether as he walked the earth 2,000 years ago, as in the Eucharist, or as he dwells in his glorified body now in heaven. We cannot separate Christ from his human nature in my view. But the Second Person has always been able to dwell in an assumed human nature or as a spirit in union with the Father and the Holy spirit. I don’t see how the human nature could exist eternally in the past, I don’t think that is how the passage should be interpreted. The only possibility I can see here is that the passage is applying the title " Christ " to the Son of God before his actual Incarnation. In other words, to the spiritual mode of existence of the Second Person, and again at the Incarnation. But I have never seen an explanation of the passage. Where is a theologian when you need one!!!

What passage are you referring too? As far as the glorified body of Christ, it is a material, physical body of flesh and bones not only where he is in heaven but in the eucharist too. A glorified body possesses some supernatural qualities such as agility, subtlety, and impassibility which a non-glorified body does not but these qualities do not make it to be a non-material body. The eucharist involves the mystery of transubstantiation where the whole quantified body of Christ is in the eucharist after the manner of substance and without dimensions. This is a miracle accomplished by the almighty power of God and one we may naturally think to be impossible as it is beyond anything we naturally observe in creation, except that we have the words of Christ and we believe it is not beyond the almighty power of God as God himself is the author of creation.

Originally posted by Thomas White:
Again, this is a matter of translation and language, I think. I agree the concept is not taught, or at least not very well explained, in the catechisms used in schools. The terminology is confusing, particularly when it is limited to the human model. While it can be said that the humanity of Christ has not existed eternally, I’m not so sure this is true of what is meant by the “body of Christ”.

Linus:
I can’t believe there isn’t an answer to this. But whatever it is, if we are speaking of human nature, we must include the body.

As Linus says here, the body of Christ is a substantial part of his human nature as it is of every human being. The human nature of Christ has not always existed. The “Word became flesh” at the incarnation and the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This took place about 2000 years ago. This is when the eternal Son of God assumed a human nature, i.e., a body and soul, and became a true man. At the same time, Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, existed from all eternally in his divine nature but not in his human nature.

Originally posted by Thomas White:
A problem is the question of how and when does this Second Nature of Christ occur when Christ is the Only Begotten (and not made) Son of the Father? I believe it perhaps involves the nature of the Trinity, where Christ is eternally begotten of the Father but “conceived” by the Holy Spirit. But it is a separate question.

Linus:
No, I don’t think it is a separate question. It is at the very heart of the question, or it is at least a part of the question. This is a very good point you raise here. Perhaps someone is watching who knows the answer?

There is no problem here and the teaching of the Catholic Church is very clear as well as the facts of history. The eternal Son of God assumed a human nature at his incarnation and the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This took place a little over 2000 years ago.

 

[Thomas_White]

Christ’s human nature requires a body, whether as he walked the earth 2,000 years ago, as in the Eucharist, or as he dwells in his glorified body now in heaven. We cannot separate Christ from his human nature in my view. But the Second Person has always been able to dwell in an assumed human nature or as a spirit in union with the Father and the Holy spirit. I don’t see how the human nature could exist eternally in the past, I don’t think that is how the passage should be interpreted. The only possibility I can see here is that the passage is applying the title " Christ " to the Son of God before his actual Incarnation. In other words, to the spiritual mode of existence of the Second Person, and again at the Incarnation. But I have never seen an explanation of the passage. Where is a theologian when you need one!!!

Linus2nd

This is again perhaps a question of language that depends on the definition of “body”. Let’s look at the facts as recorded by Scripture. During the Last Supper, Christ takes the bread and blesses it. He then proclaims, “This is my body.” He then passes the bread to the Apostles, and they eat it. Afterwards, he takes the wine, blesses it, and says, “This is my blood.” He also passes this to the Apostles, and they drink it.

Why should we presume to believe that Christ did not mean precisely what he said of the Consecrated bread and wine? To get to the point, where is it said that, strictly as a material substance, the bread and wine became anything else? While the bread and wine was transsubstantiated into the “body” and “blood” of Christ, I do not see where it is said in the Gospels that the bread and wine was literally changed into flesh and blood.

While an altar server at an early age, I wanted very much to believe the Consecrated bread and wine was indeed the “body and blood” of Christ. But doubt arose in the sacristy as I did what alter servers do following Mass. We disposed of what was left in a special sink that lead directly through a pipe to the Church garden. From an empiral perspective…well, I observed what I did–water and wine and tiny bits of hosts. It was plain and clear. Had we not earlier filled the vessels with this very water and wine? This was a dreadful experience not without irony, and with much trepidation I kept it to myself. But I was also motivated to seek an answer.

It took a very long time to sort this out, to ever realize how it was that the Consecrated bread and wine were indeed the body and blood of Christ. As I have mentioned, I believe the Person Model will only go so far. It is exegesis, but so is the trefoil, the three-leaf clover.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What passage are you referring too? As far as the glorified body of Christ, it is a material, physical body of flesh and bones not only where he is in heaven but in the eucharist too. A glorified body possesses some supernatural qualities such as agility, subtlety, and impassibility which a non-glorified body does not but these qualities do not make it to be a non-material body. The eucharist involves the mystery of transubstantiation where the whole quantified body of Christ is in the eucharist after the manner of substance and without dimensions. This is a miracle accomplished by the almighty power of God and one we may naturally think to be impossible as it is beyond anything we naturally observe in creation, except that we have the words of Christ and we believe it is not beyond the almighty power of God as God himself is the author of creation.

As Linus says here, the body of Christ is a substantial part of his human nature as it is of every human being. The human nature of Christ has not always existed. The “Word became flesh” at the incarnation and the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This took place about 2000 years ago. This is when the eternal Son of God assumed a human nature, i.e., a body and soul, and became a true man. At the same time, Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, existed from all eternally in his divine nature but not in his human nature.

There is no problem here and the teaching of the Catholic Church is very clear as well as the facts of history. The eternal Son of God assumed a human nature at his incarnation and the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This took place a little over 2000 years ago.

Thomas can respond for himself. We were discussing the passage in the Nicene Creed which goes:

" We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,… "

The phrasing seems problematic. How can Jesus Christ be eternally begotten? The only way the passage makes sense is if the name, " Jesus Christ " applies to the Son of God before the Incarnation as well as after. Because before the Incarnation the Son of God did not have a human nature. I never gave it a thought until this thread started. Then Thomas brought it up and it certainly is a " head turner. " I have never heard it brought up before and I don’t know why it never occured to me since I have said the Creed thousands of times in my life. How about you, have you ever thought about it before? I have always thought that the name, " Jesus Christ " applied only to the Incarnate Son of God. Maybe I have been wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Thomas can respond for himself. We were discussing the passage in the Nicene Creed which goes:

" We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,… "

The phrasing seems problematic. How can Jesus Christ be eternally begotten? The only way the passage makes sense is if the name, " Jesus Christ " applies to the Son of God before the Incarnation as well as after. Because before the Incarnation the Son of God did not have a human nature. I never gave it a thought until this thread started. Then Thomas brought it up and it certainly is a " head turner. " I have never heard it brought up before and I don’t know why it never occured to me since I have said the Creed thousands of times in my life. How about you, have you ever thought about it before? I have always thought that the name, " Jesus Christ " applied only to the Incarnate Son of God. Maybe I have been wrong.

Linus2nd

I think I see what your sort of saying but there is nothing in it that isn’t true for Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He who is in this human nature of Christ is none other than the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the eternally begotten Son of the Father. If we keep reading down the creed, the creed says that this one Lord, Jesus Christ is he who “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” The creed is saying that our Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who became incarnated as a man. Jesus Christ is both God and man, not two persons, but one person in two natures. I think one needs to read the whole article here and not stop at eternally begotten of the Father for Jesus Christ also has a created human nature which he assumed to himself in time.

 

[Thomas_White]

No, I don’t think it is a separate question. It is at the very heart of the question, or it is at least a part of the question. This is a very good point you raise here. Perhaps someone is watching who knows the answer?

Linus2nd

There is much to learn, I think, in both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed. They are of course early teachings of the Church. What follows is only what I think. I do not presume it is necessarily correct.

From the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one God, the Father almightly…”

There is but One God (not literally three “persons” in one God), and it is the Father Almighty.

“Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

‘Things’ is the object of the phrase. These “things” are every thing that is not God, the subject of the phrase. Importantly, ‘things’ includes what is not visible. This would include all essence, even concepts and ideas. It is here that reason is given its limited nature; not everything has yet been revealed, nor will it be revealed before the Last Judgment. Revelation seems to evolve in time toward a resolution. Each age perhaps learns a bit more, and this is the view of Pope Benedict XVI as found in “God and the World”.

“I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten”, in both Greek and Latin connotes of like nature. This seems at first glance a difficulty, but it isn’t. “Lord” means master or ruler; this surely connotes action.

“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father…”

We do not find here–in the phrase “Light from Light”–any connotation of a material nature.

“…through him all things were made.”

As noted, “all things” means every “thing” that is not God. God is the maker of all things, and through Christ all things are made.

“For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven…”

There is thus a purpose and a reason why Christ, true God, became true Man. But I do not believe the Incarnation is a limiting instance of Christ assuming a material nature.

“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed reads that Christ was “conceived” of the Holy Spirit. In this context, where Christ becomes True Man, the word “conceived” is wholly appropriate. But, again, this was a singular occurance. The Apostles’ Creed then says, “Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.” He thereby became true Man as well as true God, as the historical Jesus that walked the earth. I have to note that this was possible (i.e., the possibility of this action, this assuming of material presence as a man) through the Virgin Mary, who of course was of the material nature of a human being capable of bearing a child. I would not discount this fact, just as I would not discount the reality of bread and wine in the Eucharist. There is logic manifest in Creation.

(And I would not discount the fact that the Virgin Mary became the Queen of Heaven either, her role above that of even Peter. I note this because I do not believe we have yet seen the full Revelation and thus cannot yet know all there is to know or what there is to come. I do know Mary as Queen of Heaven is the very last Mystery of the Rosary.)

So, it seems to me that God’s nature is certainly dynamic. There is the Creation. The material world, the temporal world of substance–every “thing”–is Created by the Father through Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. But there is One God, the Father Almighty. His dynamic nature–his actions through Christ and the Holy Spirit–is understood by us only as concepts, be it as three persons or a cloverleaf. These too are Creations of this very dynamic and are concepts not yet fully revealed.

In the earlier translation of the Nicene Creed, perhaps following the Greek, Christ is said to be “eternally begotten of the Father.” That would seem to mean that outside of time, and before Creation (which then and only then entails material substance), Christ always was, is now and ever shall be:

Light from Light.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is much to learn, I think, in both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed. They are of course early teachings of the Church. What follows is only what I think. I do not presume it is necessarily correct.

From the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one God, the Father almightly…”

There is but One God (not literally three “persons” in one God), and it is the Father Almighty.

“Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

‘Things’ is the object of the phrase. These “things” are every thing that is not God, the subject of the phrase. Importantly, ‘things’ includes what is not visible. This would include all essence, even concepts and ideas. It is here that reason is given its limited nature; not everything has yet been revealed, nor will it be revealed before the Last Judgment. Revelation seems to evolve in time toward a resolution. Each age perhaps learns a bit more, and this is the view of Pope Benedict XVI as found in “God and the World”.

“I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”

“Begotten”, in both Greek and Latin connotes of like nature. This seems at first glance a difficulty, but it isn’t. “Lord” means master or ruler; this surely connotes action.

“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father…”

We do not find here–in the phrase “Light from Light”–any connotation of a material nature.

“…through him all things were made.”

As noted, “all things” means every “thing” that is not God. God is the maker of all things, and through Christ all things are made.

“For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven…”

There is thus a purpose and a reason why Christ, true God, became true Man. But I do not believe the Incarnation is a limiting instance of Christ assuming a material nature.

“and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man.”

The Apostles’ Creed reads that Christ was “conceived” of the Holy Spirit. In this context, where Christ becomes True Man, the word “conceived” is wholly appropriate. But, again, this was a singular occurance. The Apostles’ Creed then says, “Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.” He thereby became true Man as well as true God, as the historical Jesus that walked the earth. I have to note that this was possible (i.e., the possibility of this action, this assuming of material presence as a man) through the Virgin Mary, who of course was of the material nature of a human being capable of bearing a child. I would not discount this fact, just as I would not discount the reality of bread and wine in the Eucharist. There is logic manifest in Creation.

(And I would not discount the fact that the Virgin Mary became the Queen of Heaven either, her role above that of even Peter. I note this because I do not believe we have yet seen the full Revelation and thus cannot yet know all there is to know or what there is to come. I do know Mary as Queen of Heaven is the very last Mystery of the Rosary.)

So, it seems to me that God’s nature is certainly dynamic. There is the Creation. The material world, the temporal world of substance–every “thing”–is Created by the Father through Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. But there is One God, the Father Almighty. His dynamic nature–his actions through Christ and the Holy Spirit–is understood by us only as concepts, be it as three persons or a cloverleaf. These too are Creations of this very dynamic and are concepts not yet fully revealed.

In the earlier translation of the Nicene Creed, perhaps following the Greek, Christ is said to be “eternally begotten of the Father.” That would seem to mean that outside of time, and before Creation (which then and only then entails material substance), Christ always was, is now and ever shall be:

Light from Light.

So you are saying that Christ is eternally begotten? That means that Christ both had a purely spiritual existence before the Incarnation and a physical one, in his humanity, after the Incarnation. Is this what you are saying?.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think I see what your sort of saying but there is nothing in it that isn’t true for Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He who is in this human nature of Christ is none other than the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the eternally begotten Son of the Father. If we keep reading down the creed, the creed says that this one Lord, Jesus Christ is he who “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” The creed is saying that our Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God who became incarnated as a man. Jesus Christ is both God and man, not two persons, but one person in two natures. I think one needs to read the whole article here and not stop at eternally begotten of the Father for Jesus Christ also has a created human nature which he assumed to himself in time.

So you are saying that the proper noun, Jesus Christ, applies to the Son of God both before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation. If this is true, it is something that was never mentioned in any class I ever had - unless I was absent ( or asleep ). Nor have I ever seen it explained in any document or book I ever read.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

So you are saying that Christ is eternally begotten? That means that Christ both had a purely spiritual existence before the Incarnation and a physical one, in his humanity, after the Incarnation. Is this what you are saying?.

Linus2nd

No. It is the Nicene Creed in its previous translation that says Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father.”

The Council of Chalcedon decreed, by dogmatic definition in the Confession of Chalcedon, that there is but “one and the same Christ, Lord, Son, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangably, indivisibly, inseparably…the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistance, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten Son, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…”

This quote immediately follow this one in the Confession: Christ was “for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood…”

It is those last three words–‘according to the manhood’–that would seem to answer in part your question. “Manhood” occurs with the birth of the historical Jesus in the world. The question then becomes whether this “mode of human presence” continues eternally? This is difficult to reconcile with what is said of his essence. Christ has two natures, and it would seem one of them ought not to be understood as strictly human. Simply stated, Christ has many ways of appearing in the world, such as in the Eucharist for example.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No. It is the Nicene Creed in its previous translation that says Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father.”

My quote is from the Nicene Creed as translated by the CCC, pg 49, 1st ed.

" We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. "

The Council of Chalcedon decreed, by dogmatic definition in the Confession of Chalcedon, that there is but “one and the same Christ, Lord, Son, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangably, indivisibly, inseparably…the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistance, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten Son, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…”

This quote immediately follow this one in the Confession: Christ was “for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood…”

It is those last three words–‘according to the manhood’–that would seem to answer in part your question. “Manhood” occurs with the birth of the historical Jesus in the world. The question then becomes whether this “mode of human presence” continues eternally? This is difficult to reconcile with what is said of his essence. Christ has two natures, and it would seem one of them ought not to be understood as strictly human. Simply stated, Christ has many ways of appearing in the world, such as in the Eucharist for example.

I understand perfectly the definition of the Incarnate Christ, the historical Son of God. My problem is that the Nicene creed does not distinguish between the Incarnate Son of God and the non-Incarnate Son of God. So I can only conclude that the proper noun, Jesus Christ, applies equally to the Incarnate Son of God and to the non-Incarnate Son of God.
Do you understand what I said here?

Yes the Incarnate Son of God is present wherever there is a consecrated Species. Simultaneously, he is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Do you agree?

Now comes the question of governing the universe, I am not talking about grace and the Church here, just the substances which comprise the universe. Do you understand that?

Before the Incarnation, God created and governed the universe through his nature and substance as a Spiritual Being in Three Persons. This includes the non-Incarnate Son of God. Do you understand that?

Now following the Incarnation of the Son of God I contend that God, through his spiritual substance and nature, still governs the physical universe as before, which includes the equal participation of the non-Incarnate Son of God. Do you understand that?

The reason I say this is two fold. First the Son of God, since the Incarnation, was able to exist both as the Incarnate Jesus Christ and as the non-Incarnate Son of God governing the universe with the other members of the Trinity. In other words, he is exercising two modes of existence simultaneously. Do you understand that?

Secondly, it is hard to imagine the the Incarnate Son of God would begin to be active in this governance, because it would require his physical presence in each substance of the universe, and that seems inappropriate in my view. I don’t say that it is impossible, I just don’t think Christ is physically present in every rock and every element of the universe, or in every man for that matter. Further, why should God change the way the universe is governed simply on account of the Incarnation? Do you understand what I am saying?

Now the governing of the Church and the bestowal of grace, all the acts of salvation, are a different issue. But we do know that the Incarnate Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father. And salvation begins with him. But he has sent his Spirit into the Chruch to bestow the graces of salvation upon the Church and her members. See paras.727-741 of the CCC. So, in essence, he governs the Chruch through the Holy Spirit, in addition to his personal acts in the Eucharist. Do you understand what I said?

That’s all.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand perfectly the definition of the Incarnate Christ, the historical Son of God. My problem is that the Nicene creed does not distinguish between the Incarnate Son of God and the non-Incarnate Son of God. So I can only conclude that the proper noun, Jesus Christ, applies equally to the Incarnate Son of God and to the non-Incarnate Son of God.
Do you understand what I said here?

Now following the Incarnation of the Son of God I contend that God, through his spiritual substance and nature, still governs the physical universe as before, which includes the equal participation of the non-Incarnate Son of God. Do you understand that?

The reason I say this is two fold. First the Son of God, since the Incarnation, was able to exist both as the Incarnate Jesus Christ and as the non-Incarnate Son of God governing the universe with the other members of the Trinity. In other words, he is exercising two modes of existence simultaneously. Do you understand that?

Linus2nd

I understand what you have said, but I cannot agree with it. The correct answer is there is no essential difference, nor can there be, between the Incarnate and non-Incarnate Son of God. If there were, the Incarnation would entail a change, a development, or an evolution in the essence of Christ. God is pure Being; he is never a Becoming. A Becoming occurs in Creation and thus in time. It is also true that the Nicene Creed does not make this distinction either. This is no omission, and I have tried to explain why in various ways. It is the answer to what you see as a riddle. Do you understand why?

As for the governance of the universe, let’s not forget that God gave to mankind freedom of will.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I understand what you have said, but I cannot agree with it. The correct answer is there is no essential difference, nor can there be, between the Incarnate and non-Incarnate Son of God. If there were, the Incarnation would entail a change, a development, or an evolution in the essence of Christ. God is pure Being; he is never a Becoming. A Becoming occurs in Creation and thus in time. It is also true that the Nicene Creed does not make this distinction either. This is no omission, and I have tried to explain why in various ways. It is the answer to what you see as a riddle. Do you understand why?

As for the governance of the universe, let’s not forget that God gave to mankind freedom of will.

Now I understand your reason for hedging in your responses.

You are wrong. The Son of God having assumed a human nature, occurred in time. Yet the Son of God has existed eternally in a spiritual non-Incarnate form. It is the Defined teaching of the Church that God is a Spirit in a Trinity of Persons. There was no change in the substance/nature of God when the Second Person assumed a human nature. Therefore you analysis is incorrect.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

Now I understand your reason for hedging in your responses.

You are wrong. The Son of God having assumed a human nature, occurred in time. Yet the Son of God has existed eternally in a spiritual non-Incarnate form. It is the Defined teaching of the Church that God is a Spirit in a Trinity of Persons. There was no change in the substance/nature of God when the Second Person assumed a human nature. Therefore you analysis is incorrect.

Linus2nd

Huh? That’s what I did say. Well, okay, it is close but no cigar either.

Christ did not, in the Incarnation, “assume a human nature”. His nature, his essence, his Being does not ever change. Here is what the original text of the 325 A.D. Nicene Creed has to say about that:

“But those who say: ‘There was a time when he [Christ] was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made’; and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or 'He is of another ‘substance’ or ‘essence,’ or 'The Son of God is ‘created’ or ‘changeable’ or ‘alterable’–they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Clear enough, I’d say.