The Tree of Life and the Blessed Eucharist

[Nita]

If Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden would they have received the Fullness of Grace that Mary later did?

No – at least I don’t think so. Adam and Eve were guilty of a serious personal sin. And, the Genesis passage gives no indication that they repented – at least, there’s no indication that they repented prior to being made to leave the garden of Eden…
Mary received the fullness of grace in the womb – before she could possibly have committed a personal sin.

Under the New Covenant, and according to Catholic teaching, if one receives a sacrament in the state of unrepented mortal sin, we do not receive the life of sanctifying grace that would normally accompany the reception of that sacrament…
Eg. To go to confession and confess the sin, but be unrepentent - the sin is not removed and the life of grace is not restored to the soul.
To receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is to commit a sacrilege - another mortal sin.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I guess I should have been more clear–if Adam and Eve had not listened to the serpent and later on if they had eaten of the Tree of Life–would they in that case had received the Fullness of Grace that Mary later would receive?

We know that Adam and Eve were created with SANCTIFYING GRACE–would eating of the Tree of Life have given them MORE grace–the Fullness of Grace that Mary would one day receive?

I’ve always thought that if they didn’t listen to the serpent and did eat of the Tree of Life that there would have been no reason for Calvary–though some have said that eating of it might have meant that they would never die like Mary but wouldn’t preclude any children that they might have from exercising their own free will–sinning–and Calvary would still be a result–but that they like Mary would never die?

Anyone have any speculations as to what would have happened if they didn’t listen to the serpent and if they would have eaten of the Tree of Life?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I understood the OP to be asking for comparisons (type or prefigurement) between the eating the fruit on the Tree of Life in the garden and our receiving/eating of the Eucharist. I thought that was a very good question. Granted the manna in the desert was a prefigurement of the Eucharist (John 6). But it is not the only type or prefigurement. The fruit of the tree of life is; the Passover Lamb and it’s being consumed is; the showbread is. Those are three that come to mind and there are probably more.

God bless,
Nita (I’m a granny too! Isn’t it wonderful?)

Was the pre-resurrection body of Christ,
A prefigurement,
Of the post-resurrection body of Christ?

Here are some reasons:

1. After Christ’s resurrection,
   His body was hardly recognizable.
   (Though there were enough similarities to know it was the same person)

(The “bread” of life was glorified, as we see in transubstantiation)

1. Christ was a Jew,
   But
   Christianity began after the resurrection.

(According to Catholicism,
The Christ is the head of all men throughout history.)

1. The mystical body of the Church is not bound by time and space,
   A physical body of man is bound by time and space.

(Christ was physically born and died in time, but is eternal and everywhere.)

… do you see my point?

 

[Nita]

Was the pre-resurrection body of Christ,
A prefigurement,
Of the post-resurrection body of Christ?

Here are some reasons:

1. After Christ’s resurrection,
   His body was hardly recognizable.
   (Though there were enough similarities to know it was the same person)

(The “bread” of life was glorified, as we see in transubstantiation)

I’ll do my best to answer your points.

The pre-resurrection body of Christ is not a prefigurement, but the same body in a different state. His body was mortal prior to death; after His resurrection that same body had become transformed and made immortal and glorified.

Reunited with its soul, the risen body is now totally subject to the soul (intellect and will). Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding resurrection. newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
Here are the final two paragraphs of that article:
· The third quality is that of “agility”, by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power” (1 Corinthians 15:43).
· The fourth quality is “subtility”, by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul’s more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects.
This explains why Jesus, after His resurrection, could make his physical appearance different from before. His soul had/has complete control of the physical appearance of His body.
It also explains why Mary can appear with different physical characteristics in her various apparations.

1. Christ was a Jew,
   But
   Christianity began after the resurrection.

(According to Catholicism,
The Christ is the head of all men throughout history.)

I’m not able to grasp your point here – where you feel there is a conflict or problem.

1. The mystical body of the Church is not bound by time and space,
   A physical body of man is bound by time and space.

(Christ was physically born and died in time, but is eternal and everywhere.)

… do you see my point?

I’m not real sure I get your point. Will make a few comments that hopefully will help.

The mystical body of Christ, the Church, has members here on earth and members who are in purgatory and heaven.
Those members of the Mystical Body still on earth are bound by time and space; those in purgatory and heaven are not.

Perhaps it helps to think of it in the sense that the Mystical Body of Christ encompasses both: both the timelessness of infinity/eternity, and the time and space boundaries of the physical universe.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Up above Adam and Eve are discussed as though they are real. The tree of life symbolically represents the cross. Adam is Christ. Eve is us. The fruit of the tree of life is the Eucharist. The reason why Adam receives the forbidden fruit like an idiot from Eve, without even being tempted, is that he is Christ taking our sins upon Himself, in accord with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

 

[Nita]

Up above Adam and Eve are discussed as though they are real. The tree of life symbolically represents the cross. Adam is Christ. Eve is us. The fruit of the tree of life is the Eucharist. The reason why Adam receives the forbidden fruit like an idiot from Eve, without even being tempted, is that he is Christ taking our sins upon Himself, in accord with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Which post/s are you referring to by “Up above”?
If you’re trying to say that the Adam in Genesis is Jesus, then you’re contradicting Scripturek and Church teaching. That is the first Adam; Jesus is the second/last Adam (cf 1 Cor 15:45-46).
The Church teaches that we are all born in the state of original sin due to the sin of Adam. Jesus does not sin.

A real person sinned, not a symbolic one.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If you’re trying to say that the Adam in Genesis is Jesus, then you’re contradicting Scripturek and Church teaching.

After you say such a thing, will you publicly declare that YOU contradict Church teaching if it turns out that I am right?

 

[grannymh]

Up above Adam and Eve are discussed as though they are real. The tree of life symbolically represents the cross. Adam is Christ. Eve is us. The fruit of the tree of life is the Eucharist. The reason why Adam receives the forbidden fruit like an idiot from Eve, without even being tempted, is that he is Christ taking our sins upon Himself, in accord with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Please tell me that you are really fooling around and playing tricks with Scripture just to see who will catch your silliness. Otherwise, I might wonder why you chose the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Church teaches that we are all born in the state of original sin due to the sin of Adam.

I know that both Protestant Bible commentators and the Church use the Sin of Adam terminology, instead of focusing-in on Eve’s sin and calling it the Sin of Eve. When they do that, they ignore Adam’s role as a “type of the one to come,” Christ (about which you have, indeed, erred). In my opinion – obviously, not the Church’s opinion – it is an error. (I know that some of the folks here say, “Well, then, you’re not Catholic.” I actually disagree. I think that my perspective is the Catholic one. Also, no one ever talks about the “mechanics” of the so-called “sin of Adam” when Adam is viewed as a kind of magical superman in history. WHY should God want to punish the next 100,000,000,000 humans after Adam, because of an absurdly unimportant sin of disobedience? According to the common analysis, God engaged in action resulting in millions of deaths because Eve and Adam disobeyed by biting into fruit. And then Adam’s act somehow magically dirtied all of mankind and made us sin-prone in a special way.

Not.

Paul’s inspired reference to Adam as a “type of the one to come” is THE HOLY SPIRIT’S INSTRUCTION RESPECTING HOW TO TALK ABOUT ADAM AND EVE.

Adam isn’t us. Adam is Christ. Do you think Paul was just telling us nonsense? Pretty poetic things?

No. He was telling us God’s theology. God’s teaching. We are bound by Paul’s analysis.

More later.

 

[grannymh]

Adam is Christ.
More later.

“Adam is Christ.” is heresy.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Up above Adam and Eve are discussed as though they are real. The tree of life symbolically represents the cross. Adam is Christ. Eve is us. The fruit of the tree of life is the Eucharist. The reason why Adam receives the forbidden fruit like an idiot from Eve, without even being tempted, is that he is Christ taking our sins upon Himself, in accord with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

According to the Catechism #411,

Christ is…

…the “New Adam” who because he “became obedient unto death. even death on a cross,” makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam.

Mary is…

…the “new Eve” (who) benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by special grace of God committed no sin any kind during her whole earthly life.

I’ll do my best to answer your points.

The pre-resurrection body of Christ is not a prefigurement, but the same body in a different state. His body was mortal prior to death; after His resurrection that same body had become transformed and made immortal and glorified.

Reunited with its soul, the risen body is now totally subject to the soul (intellect and will). Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding resurrection. newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
Here are the final two paragraphs of that article:
· The third quality is that of “agility”, by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power” (1 Corinthians 15:43).
· The fourth quality is “subtility”, by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul’s more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects.
This explains why Jesus, after His resurrection, could make his physical appearance different from before. His soul had/has complete control of the physical appearance of His body.
It also explains why Mary can appear with different physical characteristics in her various apparations.

The mystical body of Christ, the Church, has members here on earth and members who are in purgatory and heaven.
Those members of the Mystical Body still on earth are bound by time and space; those in purgatory and heaven are not.

Perhaps it helps to think of it in the sense that the Mystical Body of Christ encompasses both: both the timelessness of infinity/eternity, and the time and space boundaries of the physical universe.

It seems that:

Israel is analogous to the pre-glorified body of Christ.
The Church is analogous to the pre-glorified and glorified body of Christ.

According to the Catechism #441,

In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings…

According to the Catechism #751,

The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christain believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth…

 

[Peter_Dawson]

grannymh:
“Adam is Christ.” is heresy.

Dear friend grannymh,

Frequently, Catholics like to throw around the “H” word, but why? To make themselves feel good?

Before inferring that because saying “X” is heresy, the speaker must be a heretic, ask yourself, “Am I publicly ready to reveal my own name on the web, and declare myself a ‘heretic,’ if it turns out that he is correct, and I am wrong?”

You are wrong. All I was doing is functionally repeating the inspired words of inspired Paul, the Adam is the type, or the symbol, of the one to come.

14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. Romans 5:14.

So, are you a “heretic,” or do you only let yourself off the hook?

Please, in the future, be gentle and kind, only.

 

[grannymh]

Dear friend grannymh,

Frequently, Catholics like to throw around the “H” word, but why? To make themselves feel good?

Before inferring that because saying “X” is heresy, the speaker must be a heretic, ask yourself, "Am I publicly ready to reveal my own name on the web, and declare myself a ‘heretic,’ if it turns out that he

Hopefully, this is kind enough for you. Please gentle friend, kindly note that the specific words “Adam is Christ” did not appear in Romans 5:14 which you quoted above. And when it is sunny and your day is bright and beautiful, please read Romans 5: 1-13. And then check the footnotes.

I am sorry, but I need to point out that “functionally” does not excuse a direct, declarative three-word sentence. Nor does the use of the mere word “type” have any substantial meaning unless the whole of the relevant meaning of typology is explained in the sense of Biblical Study.

You asked : “So, are you a “heretic,” or do you only let yourself off the hook?” That sounds like my Irish grandmother who would ask: “So what do you want to do or go on a picnic?”

Since only the official Catholic Church can declare me a heretic while anyone, even my Irish grandmother, can point out a heresy, I will let myself off your silly, I mean sweet, hook and say that Adam is not Christ. For an explanation of Who Christ is, may I offer the Nicene Creed.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hopefully, this is kind enough for you. Please gentle friend, kindly note that the specific words “Adam is Christ” did not appear in Romans 5:14 which you quoted above. And when it is sunny and your day is bright and beautiful, please read Romans 5: 1-13. And then check the footnotes.

I am sorry, but I need to point out that “functionally” does not excuse a direct, declarative three-word sentence. Nor does the use of the mere word “type” have any substantial meaning unless the whole of the relevant meaning of typology is explained in the sense of Biblical Study.

You asked : “So, are you a “heretic,” or do you only let yourself off the hook?” That sounds like my Irish grandmother who would ask: “So what do you want to do or go on a picnic?”

Since only the official Catholic Church can declare me a heretic while anyone, even my Irish grandmother, can point out a heresy, I will let myself off your silly, I mean sweet, hook and say that Adam is not Christ. For an explanation of Who Christ is, may I offer the Nicene Creed.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth.

Hi, granny.

Your words seem unkind, like you feel that I have offended you.

I apologize.

I think that you and I had better stop conversing.

God bless you, friend.

Peter

 

[Psychotheosophy]

According to the Catechism #751,

The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christain believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth…

And the “Ekklesia” (Church) is united by faith in the one true God…

Genesis 3:22 (in the OP)
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us…

…

What you are referring to is the “mystery” of the Hypostatic Union.

It seems to me that God can join Himself to the Body of Man, because God is God…

I agree that,
Man can not be God,
But
God can do whatever he wills.

The question would be,
“Why would God will to become a man?”

 

[Nita]

The question would be,
“Why would God will to become a man?”

To help us know, to some degree, how much He loves us.
I say “to some degree” because I don’t think it’s possible for it to really register in our minds and hearts just HOW MUCH God really loves us.

And then when you consider that He not only became man for us, but He also died for us, ------

John 15:13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

[grannymh]

And the “Ekklesia” (Church) is united by faith in the one true God…

…

I agree that,
Man can not be God,
But
God can do whatever he wills.

The question would be,
“Why would God will to become a man?”

I’m beginning to wonder why the word “sin” seems to be forgotten.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

And the “Ekklesia” (Church) is united by faith in the one true God…

…

I agree that,
Man can not be God,
But
God can do whatever he wills.

The question would be,
“Why would God will to become a man?”

God willed to become man for a reason that is inside of God. He became man to suffer and die. Why?

The Adam-and-Eve story is a picture of the way mankind, without grace, would handle every single moral decision. It’s not that God made us “defective.” Rather, this is what we would be like without “the Final Ingredient,” grace.

But God is “extremely this” and “extremely that.” One of the things God is, is “extremely just.”

God’s extreme justice prohibits “pennies from heaven,” “something for nothing,” “freebees.” In effect it says, “Grace is the key to coming into the presence of perfect God. But grace would be “pennies from heaven!” No “freebees.” SOMEONE has got to pay for grace.”

Because God is a God of love, God the Son volunteered to pay the price for free grace exacted by God’s Own justice – the penalty for our sins, terrifying suffering.

God the Father lovingly agreed.

And so, though He loves His Son like crazy, He sent His Son to Earth to suffer and die horribly.

The price was paid by his torture and death.

Grace became available.

Suddenly, we can be good.

Peter

 

[grannymh]

God willed to become man for a reason that is inside of God. He became man to suffer and die. Why?
Peter

In the beginning, God in His goodness gave Adam and Eve the gift of free will. While Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they freely loved God. Unfortunately, they were tempted to go against God by using their free will to do that which was forbidden by God. This act of Adam and Eve is called sin. Because it was the first sin ever committed, it is named “Original Sin”.

As parents of the entire human race, Adam and Eve acted on behalf of all who would eventually descend from them. Because Adam and Eve chose to sin, this Original Sin is passed on to us. As sinners, we needed to be reconciled to God. The way that this could happen was through Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

Jesus Christ freely chose to reconcile us through His suffering and death on the cross. By doing this, Jesus Christ conquered death and opened the gates of heaven for us. Jesus Christ also established the Catholic Church to give us the means to follow Him and thus gain eternal life with God. The Catholic Eucharist is the true presence of Jesus Christ under the signs of bread and wine. In this manner, Jesus Christ continues to live with us.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I’m sorry, maybe I should be more clear,

Worship of God is

1. external - bodily, physical.
2. internal - uniting heart and mind to God

Therefore,

If,
Old Testament Worship have images of Christ (e.g. Paschal Lamb),
And
Christ is the image of the invisible God,(Col 1:15)
Then,
Why would God assume a special presence (fire type as in the flaming sword) in the form of a man?
Why weren’t the sin offerings of the OT sufficient?