Purgatory

[Flash]

Hey just thought I would post this topic

When I was in the minor seminary for a time I had a discussion with one of my fellow sems

We argued over whether time existed in purgatory and these were the points.

+Since there is a change in soul time must exist.

+Since we are there for a "limited time", time must exist

+After death our souls would not experience the limitation of time

+time involves change but change does not necessarily involve time

I realize this is not to important but would like some imput from the Phatmass Pham

[IcePrincessKRS]

This topic was discussed recently. You can check out the debate at this link, too.

[Guest JeffCR07]

As Ice said, this has been discussed in great detail in another thread, but I believe (and Western mystical tradition upholds) that time does indeed exist in purgatory (understanding that the Church's official stance on purgatory is that 1.) it exists, and 2.) it is the condition of the soul in which purification occurs) though that time does not exist as we understand it to.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[megamattman1]

The declaration of the Church is enough to prove time. And there might (probably) be other theoretical proofs for the existence of the existence of time in purgatory, but this is just based on the presuppisitions you posted.

[quote]+time involves change, but change does not necessarily involve time[/quote]
[quote]+Since there is a change in soul, time must exist.[/quote]


You might see where I'm going with this since I posted the quotes like that.

If change does not necessarily involve time, and the soul changes, how can you necessarily conclude that time must exist?

Edited July 20, 2004 by megamattman1

[Aloysius]

i disagree, i believe change does need time. that's why time was created, so we could change. nothing that exists outside of time changes, that's why the souls in hell are always in hell and the souls in heaven are always in heaven.

[Guest JeffCR07]

On a purely theoretical and speculative basis, was, then, Christ simultaneously temporaly present on earth and enternally present in heaven, or did he leave heaven, come to earth, and ascend back to heaven?

Moreover, by that definition, one must argue that Satan and his demons are simultaneously in hell and working on earth, and that Satan was temporally present here on earth to tempt Christ while being eternally present in Hell.


I am not positive what I think about that, I would have to consider it more deeply

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

Ok, again, just speculation, but lets chew on this:

If the essential nature of "Time" is neither change, nor motion (as the scientists would have it), but rather destruction/deterioration and creation/healing then the following would be true.

1.) Time exists on Earth (natural cycle of life/death)
2.) Time exists in Purgatory (condition of purification)
3.) Time does not exist in Heaven (creation is completes and all things remain perfect)
4.) Time does not exist in Hell (suffering is seperate from physical deterioration, ie you cannot "die" in Hell, you remain in pain for eternity)

the questionable extrapolations of this idea (that I can see right now):

Time existed on earth at the moment of creation, but was intended to cease existing because all things were endowed with the supernatural grace of [i]integrity[/i] and [i]immortality[/i]

Time would have "existed again" when we lost these gifts in Original Sin, and has since existed.


I dunno if I buy all that, but its the only thing I could come up with off the top of my head as an alternate theory.

Remember, megaman is right, the only thing we NEED to know is what the Church tells us!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Flash' date='Jul 20 2004, 01:14 PM']
+After death our souls would not experience the limitation of time [/quote]
I'm not sure I can agree with this point. I see no proof that a soul does not experience time after death. Going by the 'four last things' - 'Death, judgement, heaven and hell' it would seem that judgement does allow for time.

Indeed, I would say purgatory is defined in part by its dependence on time. In heaven and hell change does not occur - time is not a necessary condition. But purgatory change does occur, and the change is not instantaneous. So certainly time is a characteristic of purgatory.

Another way we could look at it is to say that heaven and hell are the only 'places' where time does NOT exist. Since purgatory is neither of these, time must exist there.

This gives rise to another conundrum, though:

1. There is no time in heaven.
2. A game of football takes an hour to play.


Thus,

3. There can be no football in heaven.





Which is, clearly, a contradiction.

[thicke]

OK. I read though everything on here just fine, even Jeff's posts and was "chewing" on it without any real problems. Until.....

[quote name='mmmerf' date='Jul 21 2004, 07:31 AM']1. There is no time in heaven.
2. A game of football takes an hour to play.


Thus,

3. There can be no football in heaven.

 



Which is, clearly, a contradiction. [/quote]


This made my head hurt.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/21 - St. Lawrence of Brindisi

There's one thing I think we're all overlooking............

[i][b]What, exactly, is time???[/b][/i]

I would hold that there is no time in Heaven as we know it on earth, for as I see it, time is the measure of change on a physical substance or body.

For a really cool discussion on time, read Frank J. Sheed's book [i]Theology and Sanity[/i]. I'll briefly discuss it - if you're with me, let's go.

Time, as defined above, is the measure of change on a physical substance or body. We say, though, that God is not in time - He is in eternity. Eternity, therefore, can be seen as changelessness, even on the spiritual level.

But can there be change on the spiritual level? I, following Aquinas, hold that there can be. The soul, separated from the body, is able to come to an ever greater purification before the sight of God, as well as growing in the knowledge of God. These are accidental changes to the soul, but nothing that would substantially alter it. This situation (the measure of accidental change on a spiritual substance), according to Aquinas, is known as [i]aeviternity[/i].

Using this, I would hold that the soul changes in some way in Purgatory, admitting for aeviternity but not time (since time is the measure of change on a physical substance or body).

Am I making any sense at all here?

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 21 2004, 08:35 AM']
[i][b]What, exactly, is time???[/b][/i]

I would hold that there is no time in Heaven as we know it on earth, for as I see it, time is the measure of change on a physical substance or body.
[/quote]
I think your definition of time is too narrow. I would argue that time is the characteristic of a state of being that necessitates that causes precede events, for said being.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='thicke' date='Jul 21 2004, 08:25 AM'] OK. I read though everything on here just fine, even Jeff's posts and was "chewing" on it without any real problems. Until.....


[incompatibility between heaven and football]

This made my head hurt. [/quote]
I tell you, it's keeping me up nights. I've tried to discuss it with my spiritual director, but he's a baseball fan, and as we all know, a baseball game can potentially stretch on for eternity, as long as the score remains tied. You can see the bind I'm in here.

[Flash]

Hey thanks everyone for your imput. I'm a newbie so I was unaware that this topic had already been raised. I believe all of these were good points. Peace

Tuus Frater in Christo

[thicke]

[quote name='mmmerf' date='Jul 21 2004, 09:38 AM'] I tell you, it's keeping me up nights. I've tried to discuss it with my spiritual director, but he's a baseball fan, and as we all know, a baseball game can potentially stretch on for eternity, as long as the score remains tied. You can see the bind I'm in here. [/quote]
Well, it gave me a headache. But being a baseball fan myself it''s not making me loose sleep.

[Guest JeffCR07]

At this point in time, I must side with Pio Nono, who eloquently addressed what I was trying to say by mentioning death & degeneration by condensing this into "physical change."

Think about it like this: The only reason that "hours" exist is, ultimately, because our life is limited and so we break up the "time" that we have here on earth into years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc.

However, without death (or, more specifically, change in one's physical integrity) that "time" ceases to exist.

We can also come at the problem from a different angle. We know that:

1.) Upon Christ's Second Coming, we will live with Him in Eternity

2.) Upon Christ's Second Coming, we will get our bodies back, in a glorified form

Based on these two assumption, it must be accepted that a physical body can exist in time (as it does now) AND out of time (as it will in the coming Age).

So what is the difference between the two bodies, aside from time? Well, one is glorified and one is not (one exists in a state of perfect sanctifying Grace and partakes in the Divine Nature of God, is immortal, cannot be harmed, etc, while the other does not).

I would posit that, as I (and Pio) argued before, the nature of Time as we know it is held in this difference: Time is a force which only exists for those beings whose physical reality is temporary and vulnerable. Without death or physical vulnerability, Time as we know it ceases to exist.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/22 - St. Mary Magdalene

[quote]I think your definition of time is too narrow. I would argue that time is the characteristic of a state of being that necessitates that causes precede events, for said being.[/quote]

Could you clarify that for me? As I see it, you're making time merely adjectival, when my definition would want to make it more of a measurement.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:06 PM'] JMJ
7/22 - St. Mary Magdalene



Could you clarify that for me? As I see it, you're making time merely adjectival, when my definition would want to make it more of a measurement. [/quote]
Well, the problem I have with your definition is the 'physical body' part, not so much the 'measure' part. I think that a measure of change is merely quantifying the distance between a particular cause and a particular effect. So in that sense we're saying the same thing. But I would say that my definition of time would include your definitions of both time and 'aeviternity'.

Re-reading your earlier post, I see that I'm disagreeing with Aquinas. This isn't gonna be pretty.

Why is the distinction between substantial physical change and accidental spiritual change necessary? Purgatory presumes change only on the non-corporeal level, and only accidental change (since our salvation is assured on reaching purgatory.)

I suppose one could argue that my presumed definition of effect is too vague. Should an accidental effect be considered an effect in the same way as a substantial effect? Possibly not. This could be where my definition breaks down.

Does that clarify, or merely obfuscate further? I am finding myself in deep waters here...

Dave

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/22- St. Mary Magdalene

Dave,

As I take it, a substantial physical change is one that changes the substance entirely - a burnt log loses the substantial form of "log" in exchange for the form of "ash"; a dead body loses the substantial form of "human" in exchange for the form of "corpse". The concept of "time" is the measurement of change in this realm, because time relies on the physical world.

An accidential spiritual change, on the other hand, is a change with regard to the spirit that does not alter a spirit's substantial form. For instance, when I grow in the virtue of prudence, my soul is altered accidentally. I'm still me, but with some more prudence. When I am purified in Purgatory, I am altered accidentally, but not substantially. The concept of "aeviternity" is the measurement of change in this realm, because it occurs only in the spiritual realm.

Does this help at all? I'd like to eschew obfuscation if at all possible.

I'm also trying to sidestep any sort of definition that assumes cause/effect relationships - many modern philosophers aren't hip with the assumption that there is any sort of relation between a cause and an effect.

[qfnol31]

Movement is a change, and it would seem that our resurrected bodies could move, therefore I would say that we would be in time.

I had a discussion with a guy at my school about the angels being in or out of time. They're in Heaven and incorporeal (as are most men in Heaven), so it would seem that they would be outside of time. But I asked if they have free will, and they do (they made the one choice, maybe in the first moments of creation, whether or not to follow God). Since they have free will, it would seem that they would be in time. What got him is that they're incorporeal. My professor said that they just move temporally.

Oh, can you feel or think without time? Our whole life in Heaven will be great because we will contemplate God, but can we really contemplate Him if we don't have time to move through?

And for Jeff, what about a beginning? You say that death means there is no time, but what about a beginning, wouldn't that imply there is a time?

[mmmerf]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:51 PM']Movement is a change, and it would seem that our resurrected bodies could move, therefore I would say that we would be in time.
[/quote]
Aha... but will our earthly forms ascend to heaven, or will heaven come to earth?