Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

I would be very, very careful in bringing the concepts of transsignification or transfinalty to this discussion or with relation to the Holy Eucharist.  Fr. Hardon discusses the problem of people substituting these minor changes of signification for the ontological change of substance/essence in transubstantiation quoting from one of the Popes:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Faith/Faith_006.htm  Personally, I think the ontological change has more to do with a bond being established rather than a change in sign value.

[BarbTherese]

  Personally, I think the ontological change has more to do with a bond being established rather than a change in sign value.

 

Could you enlarge on that please i.e. your meaning?  I am half way through reading Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":  "The Eucharist and Its Relationship to The Church"

[God's Beloved]

I would be very, very careful in bringing the concepts of transsignification or transfinalty to this discussion or with relation to the Holy Eucharist.  Fr. Hardon discusses the problem of people substituting these minor changes of signification for the ontological change of substance/essence in transubstantiation quoting from one of the Popes:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Faith/Faith_006.htm  Personally, I think the ontological change has more to do with a bond being established rather than a change in sign value.

 

Thanks  for the link. I haven't read about the two terms in detail yet. I just mentioned  that these are discussed when studying about the sacrament of Eucharist , obviously to understand the  different ways  that Christians of various churches understand /explain the Lord's Supper.

 

Vita Consecrata specifically  states that CV are called to be an eschatological image . We need to understand this in terms of ontological change . I really haven't read much about ontological change related to a bond ........shall  try to research on this.

[God's Beloved]

.........  I am half way through reading Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":  "The Eucharist and Its Relationship to The Church"

 

 

I really liked the following from Ecclesia de Eucharistia :

 

55. In a certain sense Mary lived her Eucharistic faith even before the institution of the Eucharist, by the very fact that she offered her virginal womb for the Incarnation of God's Word. The Eucharist, while commemorating the passion and resurrection, is also in continuity with the incarnation. At the Annunciation Mary conceived the Son of God in the physical reality of his body and blood, thus anticipating within herself what to some degree happens sacramentally in every believer who receives, under the signs of bread and wine, the Lord's body and blood.

As a result, there is a profound analogy between the Fiat which Mary said in reply to the angel, and the Amen which every believer says when receiving the body of the Lord. Mary was asked to believe that the One whom she conceived “through the Holy Spirit” was “the Son of God” (Lk 1:30-35). In continuity with the Virgin's faith, in the Eucharistic mystery we are asked to believe that the same Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary, becomes present in his full humanity and divinity under the signs of bread and wine.g

[abrideofChrist]

BarbaraTherese and God's Beloved, neither of you must have read the link I provided because I have no objection to understanding the title of Bride of Christ in relation to the Eucharist- as a matter of fact I just read last night a scholarly article linking the CV with the Eucharist in the Rite of Consecration and why she is in the sanctuary for most of the Mass.  But, I do have problems with the terms transsignification and transfinalization which are explained in the linked page.  These are simply changes in how we look at something rather than in the thing itself.  That's problematic because the Rite itself says that a new spiritual anointing is given to the virgin and that's different than saying we look at the virgin in a new way even though nothing has happened to her. In other words, no real ontological change happens with transsigification or transfinalization which was the whole point of the modernist theologians.

[BarbTherese]

I really liked the following from Ecclesia de Eucharistia :

 

55. In a certain sense Mary lived her Eucharistic faith even before the institution of the Eucharist, by the very fact that she offered her virginal womb for the Incarnation of God's Word. The Eucharist, while commemorating the passion and resurrection, is also in continuity with the incarnation. At the Annunciation Mary conceived the Son of God in the physical reality of his body and blood, thus anticipating within herself what to some degree happens sacramentally in every believer who receives, under the signs of bread and wine, the Lord's body and blood.

As a result, there is a profound analogy between the Fiat which Mary said in reply to the angel, and the Amen which every believer says when receiving the body of the Lord. Mary was asked to believe that the One whom she conceived “through the Holy Spirit” was “the Son of God” (Lk 1:30-35). In continuity with the Virgin's faith, in the Eucharistic mystery we are asked to believe that the same Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary, becomes present in his full humanity and divinity under the signs of bread and wine.g

 

 

Mary, Mother of God, was and is undoubtedly the disciple par excellence on every level.  The fascinating thing to me is that we know so very little about her and yet she and St Joseph raised such an outstanding Son.  What we do know about her, however, is sufficient on which to model an entire lifetime, pilgrimage journey and discipleship and attain great holiness.

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese and God's Beloved, neither of you must have read the link I provided because I have no objection to understanding the title of Bride of Christ in relation to the Eucharist- as a matter of fact I just read last night a scholarly article linking the CV with the Eucharist in the Rite of Consecration and why she is in the sanctuary for most of the Mass.  But, I do have problems with the terms transsignification and transfinalization which are explained in the linked page.  These are simply changes in how we look at something rather than in the thing itself.  That's problematic because the Rite itself says that a new spiritual anointing is given to the virgin and that's different than saying we look at the virgin in a new way even though nothing has happened to her. In other words, no real ontological change happens with transsigification or transfinalization which was the whole point of the modernist theologians.

 

I have read the link and understand what transsignification and transfinalization mean.

 

I think I understand now, the "bond" you speak about is the CV in relationship with The Blessed Eucharist and not the relationship of The Blessed Eucharist with The Universal Church?  I don't want to go into the vocation of CV further, I am only trying to grasp the meaning of your post above.

Edited August 18, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[abrideofChrist]

Why was I warning about the two terms?  Because if we get stuck on secondary effects, then we can lose sight of the primary things.  Pope Paul VI was warning that if we just look at transsignificance and transfinaliy when we look at the Eucharist, we risk understanding the primary reality of the Eucharist ACTUALLY BEING the BODY of Christ INSTEAD of MERELY signifying the Body of Christ or having its End as the Body of Christ.  Fr. Hardon explains it this way:

 

What I will do now is identify the two principal leaders of this devastating Eucharistic error. The error of transignification. This is the view that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist means when the consecration at Mass is performed only a change of meaning or significance of the bread and wine takes place. Their substance do not change only a change of meaning or significance of the bread and wine takes place their substance does not change. The consecrated elements are said to signify all that Christians associate with the Last Supper. The bread and wine acquire a higher meaning than merely food for the body. But they remain bread and wine.

 

 

Transusbstantiation is an ontological change.  Transsignification and transfinalization are merely sign value changes with no ontological changes wrought to the substance of bread and wine.  If we apply this to the CV, we say that the CV has no ontological change, just a sign value change.  We can't say this though because the Church herself says that the CV is given a new anointing of the Holy Spirit.  This means that there is an ontological reality of change and not just a sign value change.  This is why philosophy is important- it can help someone know when theologians get off track.  In this particular case Pope Paul VI and Fr. Hardon point out the dangers of accepting transsignification as THE explanation of the Eucharist.  It is true that there is a new sign value, but this is caused by the new ontological substantial change, it cannot substitute for it.

 

Because not everyone has studied philosophy, much less theology, I will break down my explanation even more for easier comprehension.

 

When Lot's wife looked back, she was turned to salt.  This was a substantial ontological change. 

 

If you looked at the salt statue that used to be Lot's wife but is now a salt statue, you could say that the sign value changed (transsignification).  She is no longer a sign of humans or a sign of belonging to Lot's family, or a sign of a member of the Hebrews, it is now a sign of Divine punishment for disobedience.  You can REALLY say that the salt statue has changed sign values because it is now a sign of Divine punishment instead of some other sign.  But if you SAY that the change wrought to the salt statue was merely of signification (that is, first it was a sign of one thing and now it is a sign of punishment for disobedience), then you'd be completely wrong because the Change occurred at the substantial level, the level of essence.  From a healthy human being it changed into a pillar of salt.  It may be true that the pillar now has a new sign value to it, but that is merely secondary to an ontological change.  Lot's wife is no longer there.  Her soul went to its destination but her body changed into salt.  It is no longer human.

 

If a CV is anointed with a new spiritual anointing, then that means she possess SOMETHING that was NOT THERE BEFORE.  This means that at her ontological level, she is changed because something has changed her at her fundamental level.  If she merely changed as a sign value, then that'd be like the man who holds up his hand to signify "STOP!".  He doesn't change if he makes his body into a message.  The only thing that changes is his sign-value.  But if the guy becomes blind or if he becomes a priest, something happens to the level of his being.  His sign-value might change as a result of that fundamental change, but we don't say that that is all there is to the change. 

 

I apologize to those who have studied philosophy.  This is all old hat, I know, but not everyone is familiar with the terms.

Edited August 18, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

I have read the link and understand what transsignification and transfinalization mean.

 

I think I understand now, the "bond" you speak about is the CV in relationship with The Blessed Eucharist and not the relationship of The Blessed Eucharist with The Universal Church?  I don't want to go into the vocation of CV further, I am only trying to grasp the meaning of your post above.

 

Well, the bond to which I was referring was the unique nuptial spousal bond that is formed when the bishop pronounces the words of consecration over the virgin.  It is similar to the unique spousal bond that is formed between spouses in matrimony and the bond of ordination that is formed when the bishop pronounces the words of ordination over the man.

[Ima Lurker]

So you've used logic and citations to show that what you say is a reasonable conclusion. While you haven't said anything that goes against Church teaching, at the same time, you've used credible sources to backup the idea you've laid out here.  No one up until now has been able to effectively debunk your original post. Or did I miss something? :)

 

So what now?

 

[God's Beloved]

Why was I warning about the two terms?  Because if we get stuck on secondary effects, then we can lose sight of the primary things.  Pope Paul VI was warning that if we just look at transsignificance and transfinaliy when we look at the Eucharist, we risk understanding the primary reality of the Eucharist ACTUALLY BEING the BODY of Christ INSTEAD of MERELY signifying the Body of Christ or having its End as the Body of Christ.  Fr. Hardon explains it this way:

 

 

Transusbstantiation is an ontological change.  Transsignification and transfinalization are merely sign value changes with no ontological changes wrought to the substance of bread and wine.  If we apply this to the CV, we say that the CV has no ontological change, just a sign value change.  We can't say this though because the Church herself says that the CV is given a new anointing of the Holy Spirit.  This means that there is an ontological reality of change and not just a sign value change.  This is why philosophy is important- it can help someone know when theologians get off track.  In this particular case Pope Paul VI and Fr. Hardon point out the dangers of accepting transsignification as THE explanation of the Eucharist.  It is true that there is a new sign value, but this is caused by the new ontological substantial change, it cannot substitute for it.

 

Because not everyone has studied philosophy, much less theology, I will break down my explanation even more for easier comprehension.

 

When Lot's wife looked back, she was turned to salt.  This was a substantial ontological change. 

 

If you looked at the salt statue that used to be Lot's wife but is now a salt statue, you could say that the sign value changed (transsignification).  She is no longer a sign of humans or a sign of belonging to Lot's family, or a sign of a member of the Hebrews, it is now a sign of Divine punishment for disobedience.  You can REALLY say that the salt statue has changed sign values because it is now a sign of Divine punishment instead of some other sign.  But if you SAY that the change wrought to the salt statue was merely of signification (that is, first it was a sign of one thing and now it is a sign of punishment for disobedience), then you'd be completely wrong because the Change occurred at the substantial level, the level of essence.  From a healthy human being it changed into a pillar of salt.  It may be true that the pillar now has a new sign value to it, but that is merely secondary to an ontological change.  Lot's wife is no longer there.  Her soul went to its destination but her body changed into salt.  It is no longer human.

 

If a CV is anointed with a new spiritual anointing, then that means she possess SOMETHING that was NOT THERE BEFORE.  This means that at her ontological level, she is changed because something has changed her at her fundamental level.  If she merely changed as a sign value, then that'd be like the man who holds up his hand to signify "STOP!".  He doesn't change if he makes his body into a message.  The only thing that changes is his sign-value.  But if the guy becomes blind or if he becomes a priest, something happens to the level of his being.  His sign-value might change as a result of that fundamental change, but we don't say that that is all there is to the change. 

 

I apologize to those who have studied philosophy.  This is all old hat, I know, but not everyone is familiar with the terms.

 

Thanks AbrideofChrist !

 

Frankly , I haven't been able to research further on these terms although I'd learnt about them many years ago. Knowledge needs brushing up.

 

I can see  you are saying that there is a substantial ontological change in the consecration of a virgin. I  have myself supported this possibility in my own writings taking the analogy of the Annunciation and the Eucharist [ as specified in the passage from Ecclesia de Eucharistia in my previous post http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-38#entry2616504 ]. The rite for virgins clearly mentions about a New spiritual anointing added to the baptismal grace.

 

Compare this with Profession of religious. It renews Baptismal grace and helps the religious to cooperate with Baptismal grace to strive to live her religious vocation. The rite for religious profession states :

 

I. Nature and import of Religious Profession
1. In response to God's call many Christians dedicate themselves to his
service and to the welfare of humanity through the sacred bonds of religious
life and seek to follow Christ more closely through the evangelical counsels
This leads to the grace of baptism achieving richer results in them.

2. The Church has always esteemed the religious life, which, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, has taken various forms in the course of history
It has raised religious life to the rank of a canonical state and approved a great
number of religious institutes and protected them by wise legislation.

For it is the Church that receives the vows of those who make
religious profession, begs God's grace for them by its public prayer, puts them
in God's hands, blesses them, and unites their offering with the Eucharistic
sacrifice

 

 

Perpetual profession reflects the unbreakable union between Christ and his
Bride, the Church

 

In Profession of religious , the spousal imagery is Symbolic . Perhaps a Transsignification ?! The bonds of religious life are not Spousal in substance; they are according to nature of religious life.

 

In Consecration of virgins, there is a Real Spousal Bond which implies a substantial change due to a new spiritual anointing and gift of the Holy Spirit. In addition to this is the eschatological imagery of the Church's love for Christ her bridegroom. The purpose , meaning of the life of the CV also changes as she is now wholly consecrated [ dedicated to worship , service of God and His people].

 

 

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to tease things out a little bit more.  Marriage is in itself a reflection of Christ's union with the Church.  HOWEVER, marriage need not be sacramental to do this.

 

A true and valid marriage bond can form between people without the sacrament.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but they are not united by a sacramental bond.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid sacramental valid marriage bond can form between some people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond can be dissolved.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid and indissoluble valid marriage bond can form between people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond cannot be dissolved once a change happens by means of their bodies.  Their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

I suggest that you reflect on this reality and try to understand that in each of these cases, you have people who are NOT single.  What makes their bond different?  Why?  How?  And note that there is a discrete beginning to each type of bond.  It was not a continuous existence that was merely ratified, confirmed, or blessed by the Church.

 

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

[abrideofChrist]

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

 

MarysLittle Flower, I can understand where you're coming from... on the other hand I can't since God's Beloved discussed this.  Maybe doing a little research on this would be fruitful?  The Catechism and Canon Law would be good starting places.

Edited August 18, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

 

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I am trying to stay out of this thread so as to give abrideofChrist space to develop her ideas, but to answer your question briefly:

 

It's a valid and consummated marriage that can never be dissolved. If a marriage is valid (i.e., the vows were exchanged licitly in Church with the proper witnesses and permission, neither of the spouses had any impediments, both spouses were willing and able to consent to marriage, each spouse intended to follow the Church's teachings on marriage, etc.) but not consummated, then it can be dissolved by the Pope. This is a relatively rare occurrence, but it does happen.

[abrideofChrist]

Actually, MarysLittleFlower, you need to add one more qualifier to Sponsa Christi's explanation.  Insert "Sacramental" to her definition and you're good to go.