Eucharist, Trinity, Holy Spirit, Temple, Body of Christ, Theosis idea

Hi everybody. I’m really interested to have your comments and guidance. What follows is my belief based upon a synthesis of the sources of our tradition which i fully believe in. I’ve done my best not to be a heretic, that is, i avoided making my interpretative synthesis by picking and choosing only what suits me, and, therefore, denying the full teaching. I tried to be faithful to the complete tradition. Can anyone find anything wrong with this, according to the tradition, that i may be overlooking so that i can go back to the drawing board? Are there any internal contradictions?

The idea follows in the next post.

I started from a meditation on the words of Christ at the Last Supper, “take and eat, this is my Body given for you” AND “take and drink, this is my Blood of the New Covenant,” and then proceeded, from here, of a meditation of the Tradition as a whole.

I WILL START OFF FIRST BY JUST MAKING A BUNCH OF RANDOM, YET RELATED, POINTS, THE DOTS THAT NEED TO BE CONNECTED:

When he says “this is my Body,” I argue that this is, in fact, the Eschatological Gift of Christ Himself WITHIN the Holy Spirit. Let me explain. On the cross, when he breathes his last, “he gives up the Ghost/Spirit,” and I believe this refers to the Holy Spirit. In ancient Jewish Tradition, a man’s wife was said to be his “bread.” We also know that the first woman, Eve, who came through the first man from his side, was called “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh,” and this is both covenantal and marital language. Christ gave the Spirit when he breathed his last SIMULTANEOUSLY NEAR the time when his side was pierced, and blood and water flowed out (we’ve always interpreted this to refer to the sacraments, since it also alludes, as the antitype, to the Old Testament Temple sacrifices which were made through blood atonements that were then washed away with holy water [the type]; and many have also interpreted this to refer to the “birth” of the Church). Christ’s sacrifice, in relation to the cross, is typological of Adam sleeping “a sleep like death” and Eve being taken from his side (the Hebrew word can mean both “side” OR “rib”). If we take the typology further, we can argue that, just as God breathed into the first man the “breath of lives” (Eve, the pinnacle of creation…who is also called “the mother of all the “living”…same word as “life” within the “breath of lives”), and later he extracts this first woman from the side of the first man, THEREFORE, God the Father breathes the Spirit through the Son. Just as the side taken from the first man became the first woman, his bride, the Spirit coming through the side of the New Man is the New Woman, the New Bride. In early Syriac Orthodoxy (before any schism), there as a consistent understanding of the Holy Spirit to be feminine through maternal and feminine language (it wasn’t until, I believe, the 4th century, that the Holy Spirit started to be called “He;” I know there’s technically no gender within the Father and the Spirit, but I believe that the Holy Spirit chose a feminine way of relation of relation to us, just as the Father and Christ chose a male way). Hence, the Holy Spirit is the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ (as Eve is the “body” of Adam). Jesus is also resurrected in the Holy Spirit, and ascends within the Glory Cloud (always related to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament). According to Trinitarian theology, the Father breathes the Spirit through the Son. Furthermore, it has always been said that the Holy Spirit is the “soul” of the Church, AND, YET, the Church is the Bride of Christ.

IF YOU CONNECT ALL THE DOTS TOGETHER IN THE COMPLICATED PICTURE, AND FURTHER CONNECT IT ALL TO MANY STATEMENTS OF THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH WITHIN THE NEW TESTAMENT LETTERS, AS WELL AS IN ACCORDANCE TO SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH UNDERSTANDING FROM APOCALYPTIC WRITINGS TO WHICH THE NEW TESTAMENT ALLUDES TO AND CHRIST TAKES FOR GRANTED, YOU’LL END UP WITH THIS PICTURE:

The Church is the Holy Spirit, the Bride and Body of Christ, the Heavenly Temple of Tongues of Fire (Acts 2 AND the Book of Enoch), within which the resurrected, ascended, and enthroned Heavenly High Priest, Jesus, offers his once for all anamnestic love sacrifice back to the Father within Himself. Mary is the Ark and Queen Mother enthroned beside Christ (according to our typology of Adam she wouldn’t be the New Eve, but, rather, the virgin red, pure, non-fallen ground from which Adam was taken). We on earth, and the Saints already in this Holy Spirit Temple, as Members of the Body are the “Living Stones” of the Holy Spirit Temple, “built up all together” into the House of the Lord. Since Christ was a Divine Person possessing the One Shared Divine Nature of Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, but also sharing in our one shared human nature, He can, through the Sacraments, transfer also to us his Divine Nature, in which we now share too (I recommend a study of the Eastern Christian doctrine of Essence vs. Energies, as well as Theosis, for a more complete understanding). What I’m saying is that we are IN the Spirit, but we aren’t absorbed into the Godhead, losing our personhood, or anything like far eastern religions teach. We DO NOT become Divine Persons, but we do share in the Divine Nature of the Divine Persons, therefore, becoming human persons with the one shared human nature AND the Divine Nature, or, essentially, human-persons-God, and not Divine-Persons-God. But, to be more precise, we are human-persons-God WITHIN Divine-Persons-God. And this is what is meant by the words of the Fathers, “God became man so that men could become gods/God.” The Father, according to John’s Gospel, is in Christ Himself, just as Paul says, “God was reconciling the world through Jesus.” Therefore, if Christ is the King, the Holy Spirit is the Bride, we are the Living Stones of the Spirit, Mary is the Queen Mother (the Queen was always the mother in the Old Testament and ancient cultures), then the Father must be the Patriarch of the Family. It’s kind of like, typologically and not literally, saying that the Father is Abraham, Mary is Sarah, Jesus is Isaac, the Holy Spirit is Rebecca, and we are Jacob. I take the Holy Spirit both in terms of identity and maternal relation.

To recap and end things: the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is Christ anointed with, and containing within Himself, giving up, and being raised in the Holy Spirit. He is resurrected as a New Creation (Christ too bore our mortal nature, but without having committed any sin). The Blood of Christ is the sacrificial atonement wherein we are also “covered” to be able to stand within the Presence of the Trinity (the removal of the veil that Isaiah talks about, related to mortality and death [the skin of the serpent?] that keeps us from experiencing God). I don’t mean anything that Martin Luther meant. We are now New Creations but we are also, simultaneously, in the process of being “translated” out of the old, fallen creational state towards the fulfilment of our New Creationess at our death, and through purgatory.

Oh yeah, the Nicene Creed and Apostles’ Creed were also sources of the Tradition that helped me to realize both that Holy Spirit could be related to as feminine, and that the Church is the Holy Spirit (we are the Living Stones of Her who is the Heavenly Temple):

The Nicene Creed calls the Holy Spirit “the Giver of Life.” According to what I said earlier about Eve being the “mother of the living,” and this being related to “breath of lives,” this may be significant.

The Apostles’ Creed deals with the reality of the Church as Spirit. Therein, we say what we believe always in relation to the Three Persons: “I believe in God the Father almighty…I believe in Jesus Christ…I believe in the Holy Spirit.” But the parts following belief in the Holy Spirit do not contain anymore “I believe” statements. Why don’t we say “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…I believe in the Communion of Saints…I believe in the forgiveness of sins,” etc? The answer may be because these clauses are all related simply to “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

It may be possible to argue that this last part of the Creed would be understood as follows:

“I believe in the Holy Spirit WHO IS the Holy Catholic Church WHO IS the Communion of Saints WHO IS the forgiveness of sins WHO IS the resurrection of the body and WHO IS the life everlasting.”

This is possible because the Holy Spirit is related to Communion of the Body, is the forgiveness of sins, resurrected Christ/is the Spirit of resurrection, and is truly life everlasting.

Hi!
…reading through your posts I can only imagine how much time and effort you’ve put into this…

…symbolism is great… it connects realities, it intertwines values, it centers ideas…

…genderism… there are definite passages in Scriptures which would allude to a fluid composite of gender when viewing God…

…mystery… there are hidden things of God that man can only but speculate… sometimes these speculations hit on that which is Revealed and sometimes they take a life of their own…

Wisdom… is attributed a female gender… those viewing Wisdom as the Holy Spirit (found in the book of Wisdom) would no doubt conclude that there’s a female gender definition for the Holy Spirit; the same could be said of the Yahweh God Who, in the Old Testament Writings, refers to Himself in a decisive female gender (“as a mother…”)…

…I’m quite pedestrian… so I do not connect the dots that readily… take Wisdom… many would argue that it is Jesus Who is the Wisdom of God… and while many may equate “mother” as to a gender defining term, I simply look into the value of the term… the matriarch of a family/clan/nation is both the anchor and the lifeline of the people… Yahweh would, by definition, be exactly that… though we can also throw in “tenderness” and “protection;” we also have, from nature, stronger characteristics as “defender,” and “self-sacrificial:l” a mother would fight against all odds and even sacrifice herself to secure the life of her children…

…Giver of Life… while this seems to be hinting on genderism (females are the givers of life in all but the asexual organisms–well, and maybe a few oddities as the “seahorse”) we have to view this in a grander scale… Creation… The Father is the Creator; the Son is the Creator; the Holy Spirit is the Creator… (hold this thought for a little while) The Holy Spirit as the Lord, Giver of Life, goes beyond the function of the female of the species since we are entering the Spiritual Realm… the Virgin Mary is the female in whom the Word became Incarnate… for the Holy Spirit to be female, would that not suggest that Jesus would not have been conceived? The holy Spirit as the Giver of Life must go beyond genderism terms to mean that He is the Power of Creation by which the Virgin is able to Conceive the Word… as you, I often ponder… I wonder why there are seemingly detached passages of Scriptures that seem to go nowhere…

…when thinking about the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, Ezekiel 37 comes into mind… Yahweh Calls on to the prophet to Summon the Spirit… it is the Giver of Life Who brings back into existence a sea of dried bones (the inspiration of Dracula and Frankenstein, no doubt)–why is that there? …it comes from and goes nowhere… but when the dots are connected we find the convergence of St. Matthew 3:9 and St. Luke 1:37 with Ezekiel 37… the connection is that God is Israel’s Lifeline; that it is He, as the Lord Giver of Life that both anchors and sustains; that nothing is impossible in God!

…the Holy Spirit as the Church… yeah, it seems convincing… the problem is that the Church was Generated (Founded) at a specific temporal time… the Holy Spirit, being Divine, shares Eternity with the Father and the Son… He is not generated but Proceeds from the Father and the Son… this necessitates that the Lord, Giver of Life, has no insertion into the temporal world. Further (though I am not stating that I Know God), we find that the Holy Spirit is Given to the Church and that He abides with and in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ (this is close to your understanding); it is through the Church that He Makes Known the Word of God… and it is through the Holy Spirit’s Function in the Church (the Seven Sacraments) that man can Come into Communion with God.

…the Creator (three Persons of God) is the image of the Holy Trinity given to us in several passages of Scriptures… sometimes this is seen as a collective organism (the three visitors to Abraham Genesis 18; Apocalypse 5:6-14) and at other times as individuals who are One God (found in the Baptism of Jesus where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit converge and the various passages of Scriptures where it is Revealed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God).

I hope this helps.

Maran atha!

Angel

Wow! Great response! Thanks so much, you’ve definitely given me more things to think about. I totally agree with you that all Three Divine Persons are always working together as a Unity in every action. The idea that the Father is the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Spirit the Sanctifier, from God’s angle (the essence and energies) would be wrong (all Three Persons are equally Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier). But from our angle, it makes a lot of sense (though we don’t deny the previous point either). With the Holy Spirit, I would say that It reveals Itself as She for us to relate to Her in this way, although, She would be, from God’s angle, beyond gender. From God’s angle, we could say Divine Partner to Christ, in a way different from Christ and the Father, which is a Paternal/Filial relationship.

The cool thing about bringing up the Wisdom parts of the Bible, is that the Logos is also Wisdom, represented as female, most often, but also male. I think this riddle is solved within the antitype of the typology of Eve/Ishah being within Adam/Ish. Both are “Ish” before the Fall, and “Adam” does not only denote the specific person but the whole race of mankind.

Thanks for your help. God Bless!

Hi!

…glad to serve!

…I think also that the problem lies in man’s ultra need to know/define things… much like in the US, this inane affinity to shorten names… I find it so tedious–as the nicknames created after regions…

When it comes to God I limit myself to what is Revealed: a) Yahweh as the Father, b) Yeshua as the Son, c) the Spirit as the Holy Ghost/Spirit, d) all Three Being God and Revealing Himself to man at various stages and through His Determined Designations: all Three as He (only as point of reference so that our finite understanding can better cope).

Maran atha!

Angel

You have some wonderful interpretations, and the divine marital union of God and his Church definitely grants many of your points as accurate. However, since the Catholic Theology recognizes the distinction between God and the Church, as well as the Holy Spirit is fully God, your interpretation should reflect accordingly. The Holy Spirit is only the Church because the Holy Spirit gives himself entirely to the Church.

Thoughts?

Hey jochoa! Thanks for the comments! God (the Holy Spirit…who is a Divine Person) and the Church (human Saints on earth, in purgatory, and in Heaven, as well as the good angels) are both distinct and yet are one, in sense of both unity AND EVEN identity. The second part of this statement (the identity part) may sound heretical, but I believe that it is, rather, the paradoxical Truth of the New Covenant.

From everything that I wrote, we can see that the New Testament, predominantly within the Pauline Letters, stresses that the Church is the Body of Christ, and this Body is a Temple comprised of each Member of the Body as its Living Stones. We also know that Jesus refers to Himself as this eschatological Temple within John 2:19-22, and this is connected to his resurrection within the Spirit of resurrection, the Holy Spirit Herself. Second Temple Judaism believed that the earthly Jerusalem Temple was only a copy and imitation of the Heavenly Temple. The former was not good enough, and entry into the latter, the True Temple, was desired (this idea stems from Exodus 25:9, wherein Moses enters the Glory Cloud, which is the manifestation of the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, and, according to what he sees therein, he must follow this “pattern” by making an earthly imitation of it). Both Temples are distinct, the earthly one not sharing in the reality of the heavenly one, but merely imitating it. But what is this Heavenly Temple? According to the Books of Enoch, it is composed of “tongues of fire,” and this, from Acts 2, tells us that this is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is the Heavenly Temple. From what Paul says of Baptism, we know that it (deriving its Sacramental Power from the Eucharist which is its Source and Summit, just as all the Sacraments do), “engrafts us into the Body of Christ.” But the Body of Christ is a Temple, and, as I have shown within my first post and here, this Temple is the Holy Spirit. As I have shown, the Holy Spirit comes through Christ, as Eve came through Adam. But there is still a step to go. Since Christ is resurrected in the Spirit, being within Her, there’s a glorious reversal in the sense of saying that the New Adam is now within the New Eve.

We are, therefore, Members of the Holy Spirit, one in unity with Her but also within Her as identity…for we are none other than the Body of Christ. We are parts of Her, but yet She, like Christ, is undividable.

But though the New Testament seems to be saying this, how can this possibly be said to work, especially in light of philosophical questions that have, at least, a foundation in Scripture but are developed purely according to fallen logic and the reality of fallen nature (I’m not saying that you’re fallen, my non-fallen brother or sister! lol…I’m only saying that philosophy is): “isn’t the Divine Person that is the Holy Spirit distinct from the human and angelic persons that are the Church?” Yes and no. The answer is found within the theology of the Eucharist since what we eat becomes us, and we become what we eat.

First, however, I must stress some important background information to the Eucharist. Jesus’ death is a sacrifice because of the Eucharist (if it wasn’t for the Eucharist, the opponents of Christians would be able to say that Christ’s death was, at best, a martyrdom, and that we’ve somehow made it into a sacrifice). The Eucharist, instituted before the crucifixion, was what is called an anamnestic sacrifice, which is a mystical point of re-entry into, and a re-presentation of, a sacred act made at a certain point in time.

Anamnesis is a part of the Old Testament Jewish Tradition. An example is the Old Covenant priests eating the “bread of the presence” (12 consecrated loaves symbolic of each of the twelve tribes, upon the golden altar in the Priestly Sanctury, not in the Holy of Holies, but immediately before it, where no lay Jew could go). This was an anamnesis of Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the 70 elders of Israel ascending Mount Sinai to see God and eat and drink in his Presence (Exodus 24). The idea behind this sacrificial reality was that, each time the priests ate and drank this bread on the golden altar, they were, mystically BUT LITERALLY at that same moment where Moses and the others did so with God on Sinai. The same is true for the Passover ritual too. Later generations of Jews ate it “with their loins girded, with their staff in their hands,” etc. Why? Because when they celebrated the Passover, they were mystically BUT LITERALLY right there back in Egypt, experiencing God’s deliverance from slavery and idolatry.

Jesus, too, celebrates the Passover, and fulfills it, in an anamnestic way, but this time, instead of pointing backwards, he points forward to his cross and resurrection. All the hints and preparations of the Passover find their fulfilment in the Last Supper. He makes Himself the New Passover Lamb, Himself within the Spirit, that must be eaten. He makes the Third Passover Cup of wine into his atoning, New Covenant-Making Blood. The New Passover, interestingly, is not completed at the Last Supper because on the cross he drinks the Fourth Passover Cup of wine, called the “Cup of Wrath” (when they give him vinegar which, here, is actually sour, cheap wine) for our sake. He then fully completes the entire anamnesis when he is resurrected and with the two disciples at Emmaus, a fulfilment of the Old Covenant Feast of Unleavened Bread (Luke 24).

Again, in light of all of this, the Eucharist is anamnestic, and anamnesis works with but is beyond mere linear time. A while back, I was troubled at the following idea: if Transubstantiation is true, what happens to all the wonderful symbolism associated with both bread and wine? If, within this doctrine, there is no more bread-ness or wine-ness, but only accidents that look and taste like these, then all of the symbolism of bread and wine, from within biblical and Jewish Tradition, becomes irrelevant and should not be employed when seeking to understand the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is not bread and wine. Such associated symbolism may work with Old Covenant types, but cannot be said to work with the New Covenant fulfilment.

I, therefore, developed an alternative to Transubstantiation, as well as to Consubstantiation: Christ was able to make the bread and wine into Himself simply by eating them. The idea goes as follows: Christ first ate the bread before giving it to the Apostles, and, later, first drank the wine before giving it to them as well (and I will later prove this according to the Scriptures). Jesus, therefore, made the bread into Himself, but, specifically, Himself WITHIN his Holy Spirit Bride (as touched upon in my first post) instantly, and the Apostles, eating their portions of it, actually ate Him within the Spirit, instantly. We know that Jesus was anointed, in the Jordan at his baptism by John, with the Holy Spirit, which came down in a bodily image/form upon Him (Luke 3:22). The Spirit may be said to be on him, but also within him, since the Holy Spirit fills all things and is everywhere present. We also know that Trinitarian theology teaches what is called the Divine Perichoresis, which means that all Three Divine Persons are within One Another. Going back to what I said earlier, Jesus eats the bread, making it one with himself, specifically in regards to himself anointed with, and having within, and resurrected within (again, beyond time) the Holy Spirit. With the wine, he drinks this, making it one with himself in his atoning and Covenantal Blood, as well as our covering so that we can stand in the Divine Presence, within this earthly life, as we await our full “translation” out of Adam into the New Adam, fully completed at our death, or within purgatory.

This is tricky: the Bread and Wine in the Consecration at Mass are therefore not ordinary bread and wine, like Consubstantiation would PARTLY teach, but the actual same Bread and Wine taken into the suffering, crucified, and resurrected Jesus, which become ONE with, and IDENTICAL, to Him (so to speak, Jesus within Jesus, and Jesus-in-the-Spirit within Jesus-in-the Spirit). I will explain it better. Concerning the bread, it is ordinary bread before the Mass. The priest consecrates it through entering into the anamnesis, and it becomes the VERY SAME Bread (from two thousand years ago) within Jesus’s stomach, the VERY SAME BREAD which Jesus identified with Himself WITHIN the Spirit. This Bread becomes one with Him. Therefore, we have Jesus-within-the-Spirit WITHIN Jesus, and now, obviously and simply, Jesus. The same explanation can be made with the wine, the only difference being that Jesus makes it solely represent and become just Himself and not the Holy Spirit.

What I am saying is shocking: the bread at Mass is the same ancient Bread, which is simultaneously this AND Jesus AT THE SAME TIME. It is not ordinary bread that Jesus and the Holy Spirit somehow work with but are distinct from, are only spiritually present within or around (consubstantiation). Nor is it no longer bread at all, but just Christ (Transubstantiation). It’s both, but in a much more paradoxical unity. It’s the same Bread Jesus put into Himself which became Him…and this allows us to focus exclusively on the Divine Persons, worshipping the Bread-Jesus-Within-the-Spirit because It is truly Christ within the Spirit.

Therefore, not only is the symbolism associated with bread-ness not, thereby, destroyed but still relevant, this also has further theological importance for understanding what happens to us when we all eat Jesus-within-the-Spirit and drink Jesus. Since we become what we eat and drink, and Christ and the Spirit are in no way divided, we must become them in Identity. We receive the full Divine Person Jesus in his Human and Divine Natures within the Eucharist. We receive the full Divine Person Holy Spirit in Her Divine Nature, as well as according to Her “bodily” manifestation upon Christ and within Him. Therefore, in precisely the same manner that we have understood the relationship, unity, and Identity of the Bread and Wine in regards to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we must understand ourselves in regards to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, since we would share in the exact same relationship, unity, and Identity.

In light of everything I said within my first post this would, biblically, best be understood as us being WITHIN the Spirit as Her Living Stones and Members, WITHIN this Same Temple wherein Christ dwells, and Christ would be said to “walk and dwell” within and among us.

Chalcedonian and Nestorian understandings may also further help us understand things. I hope what follows will not be offensive to you, but I came to an interesting idea, more recently, wherein it may be possible to argue that the Chalcedonian statement concerning Christ’s Person and Natures is true, and so Christ is “Chalcedonian,” but the reality of each individual Christian, on the other hand, may be according to a “Nestorian” understanding. Let me explain. The Chalcedonian and true position concerning Christ is that he is a Divine Person possessing both the One Shared Divine Nature of the Father and Holy Spirit AS WELL AS our one shared Human nature. Nestorianism, by contrast, taught that Christ was both a Divine Person and a Human Person who possess the One Shared Divine Nature as well as our one shared Human nature, and this was wrong because it was a heresy. But it may work with a human person Christian. If I, as a Member of the Body of the Holy Spirit with Christ within, am a human person with the one shared Human nature and the One shared Divine Nature AND am, simultaneously inside of the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit, and am, then, paradoxically, a part of a Divine Person, isn’t it possible to appropriate Nestorian Christology wherein Christ was said to be “a Divine Hypostasis and a human hypostasis, with the One shared Divine Nature and the Human nature,” and transfer this definition onto myself, instead of upon Christ? I can, therefore, say that I’m a Divine Person, since I’m in one and am a part of one, and am a human person, and that I share in the one shared Human nature as well as the One shared Divine Nature. I don’t share in this by nature but by grace. Christ is still the “head” Hypostasis, to whom I submit and by whom I function.

If this works with myself, as a Member of the Church and as a Member of the Holy Spirit (since both are the same, paradoxically), the entire Church (Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant) can be said to be, paradoxically, the Holy Spirit, in unity and identity. And yet, both the Church and the Holy Spirit can also be distinguished too. It’s all just an exciting and true paradox.

IN CONCLUSION: here’s how the philosophical distinction between the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit and the Church is “healed,” that is, how it becomes a more appropriate distinction. The Church is the Holy Spirit, but the Church never created the universe. Throughout my entire explanation, I have consistently used the words Divine Nature, but, it must be explained, I only did so to better relate to other Roman Catholics. Within Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy, we make a distinction between the One Shared Divine Nature and the One Shared Divine Energy (when I say Nature, here, I mean Essence, and from now on, I will use only the word “Essence”…bear with me, this is very difficult to explain). Roman Catholics, however, are not familiar with this distinction. The distinction is as follows: the Divine Essence is beyond all creation and cannot be understood by any creature, nor can it be experienced by any creature. If a creature knew and experienced the Divine Essence, it would become the Fourth Person of the Trinity…there would be a Quadrinity. The Divine Nature is utterly transcendent and known only to the Trinity itself, being what the Trinity truly is within Itself, beyond all creation, which, again, is not comprehensible. Of the Divine Essence, all we were granted to know was that 1) the Divine Person of the Father gives Christ and the Spirit their separate Divine Personhoods and their One Shared Divine Essence, 2) the Father begets the Son and breathes the Spirit, and 3) the Father breathes the Spirit into the Son to go through him, and, from this, the Divine Energies “flow out.” The Divine Energies, so to speak, “flow out” of the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence and Energies are equally the one Trinity, the difference just being in terms of Transcendence and Immanence (there isn’t two Trinities!). Nothing in creation can ever know or experience the Divine Essence. But, for the sake of creation, there is the Divine Energies, which are uncreated. The Divine Energies are Grace itself, the Presence of God for creation. The Trinity FROM WITHIN THE ESSENCE but THROUGH the Energies created the universe. When 2 Peter 1:4 talks about being “partakers of the Divine Nature,” the Text does not mean partaking of the Essence, but of the Energies. Therefore, the Church can admit that She’s the Holy Spirit but cannot admit to having created the universe, since She is within the Energies but not within the Essence. I hope this makes sense. Again, our earlier “yes and no” answer, too, needs further “healing,” since, as I have stated, there is only one Trinity within the Essence and within the Energies, and not two Trinities. Language fails us to properly explain this any further.

CONCERNING HOW CHRIST FIRST ATE THE BREAD BEFORE GIVING IT TO THE APOSTLES, AND, LATER, FIRST DRANK THE WINE BEFORE GIVING IT TO THEM AS WELL:

We know that Jesus consumed both the wine that he literally called “the Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant” and the bread that he literally called “My Body” (Himself within the Spirit). Israelite and Jewish covenant meal ratification is inconceivable unless all parties, including Jesus, consume a sacrificial meal. Therefore, Jesus too must have done this and not only given His Body and Blood to the apostles alone. This is further demonstrated from the Scriptures themselves. It is an eschatological event, fulfilling the eschatological hopes of Second Temple Judaism, wherein the Messiah King, Paschally (in accordance to John 6), would eat the Great Meal within a restored Davidic Kingdom consisting of Himself and his Twelve Davidic Ministers, to whom Jesus has bestowed a Kingdom that “[they] may eat and drink at [his] table…and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” according to Luke. Interestingly, Jesus, within the Emmaus account of the same Gospel, celebrates the same meal again, something he said earlier that he wouldn’t again do until the Kingdom has definitively come (THIS PROVES THAT HE DRANK THE BLOOD/WINE BEFORE GIVING IT TO THE APOSTLES…THE BLOOD/WINE IS IMPLIED TO HAVE BEEN DRUNK AT EMMAUS). At the Last Supper, Jesus also ate the bread because it says that after Supper he took hold of the Third Cup of Wine and made this his Blood. An early manuscript variant for Luke 22:16, states “for I tell you I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God,” rather than “for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God” (THIS PROVES THAT HE ATE THE BODY/BREAD BEFORE GIVING IT TO THE APOSTLES). He also takes the Third Cup of Wine, that of Blessing, and must have drank it on account of the fact that the Gospel according to Mark likewise associates to it Jesus’ words of “I shall not again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new [again] in the Kingdom of God” (THIS AGAIN PROVES THAT HE DRANK THE BLOOD/WINE BEFORE GIVING IT TO THE APOSTLES).

The Apostles, in this moment, instantly, beyond time, therefore, received the crucified and resurrected Jesus in the Eucharist while still at the Last Supper.

Tinyaugustine,

Thanks for sharing further thoughts, yet your understandings are not fully representative of Catholic Theology.

According to Catholic Theology, Mother Mary conceived a child with her spouse, the Holy Spirit. You are right in that because Mary has complete union with the Holy Spirit, she is the Holy Spirit. However, a more complete understanding recognizes that Mary is the Holy Spirit through a marital union with the Holy Spirit.

Biblically according to John 14:26, the Holy Spirit is a “he.”

Another theological point to consider is the Nicene Creed.

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life,…he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.”

To limit the Holy Spirit to a “she” is incomplete theology.

Hey again, jochoa. I never said that Mary is the Holy Spirit. Concerning the idea that she is the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit,” this is, only a popular Catholic interpretation, and the title is often used devotionally. While Popes have said this, they were never specifically making an infallible statement that this is a dogma that must be believed. It isn’t a dogma of the Catholic Church, so Catholics can disagree with this title; the East has never said this, from what I understand.

John 14:26 never actually uses “he.” The Greek verbs are always ambiguous (he or she), and while some titles in the verse are masculine, most are neuter. And like I said, the early Syriac Orthodox Church considered the Holy Spirit feminine.

Hi!

…I wonder, if Jesus, being God, defines the Holy Spirit in a masculine gender, why do you insist in a feminine genderization?:

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you [size=]another Paraclete, that he may abide [/size]with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,** he will teach you all things**, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (St. John 14:16-17, 26)

Ascertaining knowledge is almost as wonderful as sharing the acquisition with others… however, left unchecked, we run the risk of losing ourselves in it.

Maran atha!

Angel

Hey jcrichton! It’s good to hear from you again! Jesus never actually makes it clear enough in the Greek. Concerning the Holy Spirit, we only read of “He” in the translation from Greek. This is a translation issue, not an exegetical one. It’s true that the word “comforter” is masculine, but all the verbs are ambiguous (I’m pretty sure the same goes for the Nicene Creed), and “Holy Spirit” is feminine in Greek. It’s, also, not a dogma of the Church that the Holy Spirit is masculine or feminine…this has not been dogmatically defined. Like I said, the Early Syriac Orthodox Church, even before a schism, always spoke of the Holy Spirit in feminine terms. Later, however, around the 4th century or so, there was more of an insistence on the masculine. But it’s not dogmatically defined, and dogmatic definitions in general, from the source of the Fathers, would be subservient to the higher source of the Sacraments and Scripture, and their wonderful typological and literal meanings. What I am saying is that my argument does not rest on the femininity and masculinity of words, but on theological concepts, the literal sense of many passages, and typology. It’s, therefore, a theological argument, and not merely a semantic one.

Also, jochoa, saying that the Holy Spirit is a She, does not limit our theology, nor make it incomplete. I have said, within my first post: “I know there’s technically no gender within the Father and the Spirit, but I believe that the Holy Spirit chose a feminine way of relation to us, just as the Father and Christ chose a male way.” Within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit would have no gender, but, in terms of how It wants us to relate to it, would be in a feminine way. It’s just a manner of relation given to us, to help us understand and appreciate the Holy Spirit, not a Trinitarian revelation that the Holy Spirit, WITHIN the Trinity, in the Essence, is feminine. Within the Energy, however, this may be debatable, since the Holy Spirit was the bodily anointment upon Christ.

Hello tiny_augustine,

In consideration of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church, God is referred to as “he,” “himself,” and “his.” Since the Holy Spirit is fully God, the Holy Spirit is Himself, the Creator of everything.

Also, you should consider whether Catholic Answers website considers the Holy Spirit a He or a She? catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-divinity-of-the-holy-spirit

You should revise your understandings to account for the Holy Spirit, Himself.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.