Transubstantiation Analogy form OT to NT

[JReducation]

I would only make one change in the above. Eve was not born from the side of Adam. She was created. We have to be careful, because the first humans to come into existence were not literally born. Even if we look at genetic evolution. Either way, Creationism, Evolution or Intelligent Design, the first humans were called into existence by the will of the Creator.

The Church was not born. It literally received its life from Christ.

In this sense, Adam and Eve and Christ and the Church are parallel. The former receives life from the life of the latter. The word born is dangerous.

Hope this helps

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

I would only make one change in the above. Eve was not born from the side of Adam. She was created.

I was speaking metaphorically… using born as a literary license. Nevertheless, you make a good point so I edited it since it was a fresh post. Thanks.

 

[Catholic_Author]

The Church was not born. It literally received its life from Christ.

In this sense, Adam and Eve and Christ and the Church are parallel. The former receives life from the life of the latter. The word born is dangerous.

Hope this helps

JR

JR,
The Church uses this language in the Catechism: Church/born Eve/formed

CCC 766:
*"The **Church is born *primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross"

 

[JReducation]

JR,
The Church uses this language in the Catechism: Church/born Eve/formed

CCC 766:
*“The **Church is born ***primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are **symbolized **by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross”

Observe that they make certain to include the word symbolized (emphasis is mine) to ensure that the reader understands the word “born” is a metaphor. The Church wants to make sure that we see the connection between Christ and the Church, but not the Christ as its mother. This is a title that the Church reserves for Mary.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

Christ’s death makes His teaching that the Sabbath is made for man come alive with meaning because He died, lay in the tomb over the Sabbath and came back to life on the first day of the new week so that we could have new life too. The new week is new life for us. The Church was born from Christ’s side that was pierced after He died in the same way that eve was **formed **from the side of Adam as he slept. The Church comes to life in this act of total self giving, this consummation, this sacrament. We are transformed and given life as we celebrate and receive the Eucharist, which is His body crucified and resurrected.

so we got this part cleared up let’s concentrate on this part:

If the Eucharist is not transubstantiated into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… if it is not become Him then this same life comes not into the Church and the Church would not have come into the world. The very fact that Christ’s Church is visibly here is testimony that this sacrament, the Eucharist is life… that very life that Jesus said is His flesh (Jn 6:51).

Any thoughts about the relationship between the Sacrament and the Real Presence aspects of the Eucharist, and the life of the Church. I think JP II has some insights in The Cultural Significance of the Eucharist. I’ll have to look into it though…

 

[Catholic_Author]

Observe that they make certain to include the word symbolized (emphasis is mine) to ensure that the reader understands the word “born” is a metaphor. The Church wants to make sure that we see the connection between Christ and the Church, but not the Christ as its mother. This is a title that the Church reserves for Mary.

JR

Acknowledged. And that speaks to my next request.

Let’s discuss the relationship of the Eucharist to the Church. I think there is a few nuggets of gold to be mined and they may point to Transubstatiation at least indirectly. In any case it will be worth the dig. Let’s look at this bolded part:

“The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross”

 

[JReducation]

If the Eucharist is not transubstantiated into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… if it is not become Him then this same life comes not into the Church and the Church would not have come into the world. The very fact that Christ’s Church is visibly here is testimony that this sacrament, the Eucharist is life… that very life the Jesus said is His flesh (Jn 6:51).

Some with the wording of this passage does not feel quite right. But to be honest, I have not a clue what it is. Let me think about this.

Will be back.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

Observe that they make certain to include the word symbolized (emphasis is mine) to ensure that the reader understands the word “born” is a metaphor. The Church wants to make sure that we see the connection between Christ and the Church, but not the Christ as its mother. This is a title that the Church reserves for Mary.

JR

Hold on a second…at risk of obfuscating what I really want to talk about I think we have to settle this metaphor talk… it is dangerous unless clarified. We don’t want anyone getting the idea that the sacraments are symbolic the way PCM insisted in the other thread

The part in CCC 766 that JR bolded with the word “symbolic” is from Lumen Gentium. The preceding sentence is a statement purely of the writers of the CCC. Granted they put them together and you can draw that conclusion that they mean to say this is a metaphor that the Church is born… but what do you do with the last two sentences which are taken from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM and St. Ambrose independent of the CCC and the sentence with the word “symbolic”? No the word symbol refers not to the fact that the Church comes into being (or receives life, or is reborn) from the side wound of Christ but that the blood and water symbolize her rebirth and life just as they confer that grace in the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. In the sacrament of Baptism we are born of water and spirit. In the sacrament of the Eucharist we receive life. The water and blood from Christ’s side symbolize these respectively. But here is where the problem comes in if we say that the Church is metaphorically born from the side of Christ. We do not want to give the impression that the sacraments are likewise metaphoric or symbolic. This is the problem presented by PCM in the other thread. Instead we mean to say here that these sacraments confer real grace and what was called symbolic, is in the sacraments the sign of that grace… except for the Eucharist which not only is the sign but actually is the grace.

So to be clear… the word born may be a metaphor but the fact that the Church receives life by the sacrifice on the cross is not symbolic but real.

 

[Catholic_Author]

Originally Posted by Catholic Author
If the Eucharist is not transubstantiated into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… if it is not become Him then this same life comes not into the Church and the Church would not have come into the world. The very fact that Christ’s Church is visibly here is testimony that this sacrament, the Eucharist is life… that very life the Jesus said is His flesh (Jn 6:51).

It is very poetic this way… the Eucharist is His flesh and the Church is His body (also His flesh). We have become one with Christ this way… they way a bride and bridegroom become one flesh.

 

[JReducation]

Hold on a second…at risk of obfuscating what I really want to talk about I think we have to settle this metaphor talk… it is dangerous unless clarified. We don’t want anyone getting the idea that the sacraments are symbolic the way PCM insisted in the other thread

The part in CCC 766 that JR bolded with the word “symbolic” is from Lumen Gentium. The preceding sentence is a statement purely of the writers of the CCC. Granted they put them together and you can draw that conclusion that they mean to say this is a metaphor that the Church is born… but what do you do with the last two sentences which are taken from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM and St. Ambrose independent of the CCC and the sentence with the word “symbolic”? No the word symbol refers not to the fact that the Church comes into being (or receives life, or is reborn) from the side wound of Christ but that the blood and water symbolize her rebirth and life just as they confer that grace in the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. In the sacrament of Baptism we are born of water and spirit. In the sacrament of the Eucharist we receive life. The water and blood from Christ’s side symbolize these respectively. But here is where the problem comes in if we say that the Church is metaphorically born from the side of Christ. We do not want to give the impression that the sacraments are likewise metaphoric or symbolic. This is the problem presented by PCM in the other thread. Instead we mean to say here that these sacraments confer real grace and what was called symbolic, is in the sacraments the sign of that grace… except for the Eucharist which not only is the sign but actually is the grace.

So to be clear… the word born may be a metaphor but the fact that the Church receives life by the sacrifice on the cross is not symbolic but real.

No no no

I’m not trying to say that the sacraments are symbolic. None of the sacraments are symbollic. All of the sacraments are signs instituted by Christ to give grace. Every sacrament actually gives divine life.

I was referring to the word birth. I’m trying to make sure that we understand that birth is not being used in the sense of mother and child, because Christ is the head, not the mother of the Church.

I hope this is clearer.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

Yes, much clearer. I never doubted you. You do see why I wanted to clear that up right? I think there was more chance of some one misunderstanding “symbolized” than of misunderstanding “birth”. I also wonder if we don’t have a translation problem in the English CCC. But I leave that to the more accomplished and scholarly to figure out.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, much clearer. I never doubted you. You do see why I wanted to clear that up right? I think there was more chance of some one misunderstanding “symbolized” than of misunderstanding “birth”. I also wonder if we don’t have a translation problem in the English CCC. But I leave that to the more accomplished and scholarly to figure out.

There is a translation problem. It was orginally translated from Latin to the Romance Languages, then English. The first English translation was rejected by many Americans because it of the grammar, vocabulary and spelling. It used standard English. A request was sent to Rome for an American English translation. A publisher purchased the rights and translated from Standard English to American English. Later another translation was done from the Latin to American English. It depends on which English translation you have.

I used the original English translation on the Vatican website and my own copy of the Latin edition.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

Let’s revisit this point that the Church is a visible proof of the Real Presence:"

If the Eucharist is not transubstantiated into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… if it is not become Him then this same life comes not into the Church and the Church would not have come into the world. The very fact that Christ’s Church is visibly here is testimony that this sacrament, the Eucharist, is life… that very life that Jesus said was His flesh (Jn 6:51).

First Point - Life of the Church as proof of Real Presence
I am saying that it is enough to see the effect of the Eucharist to know that the cause is there, even if the cause is not able to be sensed. This is an application of the Thomisian axiom that cause and effect are intrinsically linked as one. For instance when you cut an apple the apple is simultaneously being cut. The cause is you cutting and the effect is the apple being cut. If the cause of cutting ceases then the effect of being cut also ceases. When we apply this concept to the Church/Eucharist relationship we discover the Eucharist as the cause and continuation of the Church. The Church came into being, received her life through “Christ’s total self-giving” on the cross which was “anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist.” (CCC 766) If the Church stops celebrating the Eucharist she stops living because her life is caused by it. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life (Lumen Gentium 11 - some translations will read “fount and apex”). Therefore the very existence and continuation of the Church is a testimony to the life which the Eucharist gives. This life is inseparable from Christ. I don’t think to need to prove the inseparability of His life from Himself so I won’t go on.

Second Point- From Real Presence to Transubstantiation
Now consider that in the same way that Jesus’ life cannot be separated from Himself neither is His body, which is part of Him, separable from His life. Therefore where the Life of Christ is visible so too must His body be even though it may not be visible. Since we know from the first point that His life is the life that sustains the Church through the Eucharist we must also know that his body is there as well. We know this though we cannot see it be cause we see the effect of it. Since His body must be there but it is not the accidents (the things able to be sensed) it must be something else. That something else is the substance of the Eucharist. Hence the substance of bread is no longer there since no two things can occupy the same space at the same time. This is Transubstantiation.

 

[JReducation]

First Point - Life of the Church as proof of Real Presence

This is interesting. Let’s see where you’re going with it.

I am saying that it is enough to see the effect of the Eucharist to know that the cause is there, even if the cause is not able to be sensed. This is an application of the Thomisian axiom that cause and effect are intrinsically linked as one.
When we apply this concept to the Church/Eucharist relationship we discover the Eucharist as the cause and continuation of the Church. The Church came into being, received her life through “Christ’s total self-giving” on the cross which was “anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist.” (CCC 766) If the Church stops celebrating the Eucharist she stops living because her life is caused by it. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life (Lumen Gentium 11 - some translations will read “fount and apex”). Therefore the very existence and continuation of the Church is a testimony to the life which the Eucharist gives. This life is inseparable from Christ. I don’t think to need to prove the inseparability of His life from Himself so I won’t go on.

This is accurate. Christ builds the Church and sustains her with his life.

Second Point- From Real Presence to Transubstantiation

This is kind of awkward, because the real presence results from transubstantiation.

Now consider that in the same way that Jesus’ life cannot be separated from Himself neither is His body, which is part of Him, separable from His life. Therefore where the Life of Christ is visible so too must His body be even though it may not be visible. Since we know from the first point that His life is the life that sustains the Church through the Eucharist we must also know that his body is there as well. We know this though we cannot see it be cause we see the effect of it. Since His body must be there but it is not the accidents (the things able to be sensed) it must be something else. That something else is the substance of the Eucharist. Hence the substance of bread is no longer there since no two things can occupy the same space at the same time. This is Transubstantiation.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but I would restate it this way. Your argument is based on a negation. Try to restate it as an affirmation.

Jesus’ life and body are real. Where his body is, so is he. As the Church is his Mystical Body, she also shares in his life. The Eucharist is the means by which the Church shares in his life. Therefore, the bread and wine must actually be Jesus in order for the Church to be nurtured by Christ. Since the Church is both physical and spiritual, the Eucharist must also be the physical and spiritual Christ. It must nurture and sustain both the human and divine nature of the Church. Just as Christ has two natures, so does his Mystical Body.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

This is kind of awkward, because the real presence results from transubstantiation.

Transsupbstantiation does not result from Real Presence but understanding one aspect of the Eucharist can lead to an understanding of another aspect of the Eucharist.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but I would restate it this way. Your argument is based on a negation. Try to restate it as an affirmation.

Jesus’ life and body are real. Where his body is, so is he. As the Church is his Mystical Body, she also shares in his life. The Eucharist is the means by which the Church shares in his life. Therefore, the bread and wine must actually be Jesus in order for the Church to be nurtured by Christ. Since the Church is both physical and spiritual, the Eucharist must also be the physical and spiritual Christ. It must nurture and sustain both the human and divine nature of the Church. Just as Christ has two natures, so does his Mystical Body.

I respect the sensibility to write it as affirming and I see much value in it. I will make an attempt soon at reasoning it this way but for now I would like to stress that using a negative to is not an invalid logical process. I would also like to revise a statement concerning the Thomasian axiom I claimed to have used. The one I was thinking of is called the principle of non-contradiction. This means that a thing cannot *be *and not-be at the same time. They way I wrote it earlier it is more like physics.

 

[Pax]

Hmm…much to think about.

 

[JReducation]

Hmm…much to think about.

Are we tickling your brain, Pax. LOL

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Are we tickling your brain, Pax. LOL

JR

I’m tickled. :yup:

 

[Pax]

Are we tickling your brain, Pax. LOL

JR

That you are JR…problem is that I always like to be involved and to make contributions when my brain is as you say “tickled.” This thread tickles my brain, but goes beyond my ability to make a meaningful contribution. I happen to really enjoy CAF because we get some really gifted people on here and I’m able to learn a great deal.

This thread is a stretch for me because it involves so much more creative thinking and speculating on how all these things come together. This thread is on a theological exploration that I am only able to track and follow.

My compliments.

 

[JReducation]

That you are JR…problem is that I always like to be involved and to make contributions when my brain is as you say “tickled.” This thread tickles my brain, but goes beyond my ability to make a meaningful contribution. I happen to really enjoy CAF because we get some really gifted people on here and I’m able to learn a great deal.

This thread is a stretch for me because it involves so much more creative thinking and speculating on how all these things come together. This thread is on a theological exploration that I am only able to track and follow. Bold is mine, JR

My compliments.

Thanks for pointing this out. I apologize. I feel embarrassed.

I never meant to exclude anyone. Our Holy Father St. Francis always said that we should study theology as long as it did not extinguish the spirit of prayer and charity. I’m truly ashamed.

The correction is taken and I will keep my posts so that everyone can enjoy them and participate.

I’m sooooooooo very sorry. I do not mean to be condescending.

JR