Purgatory

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:41 PM']
Does this help at all? I'd like to eschew obfuscation if at all possible.
[/quote]
Yes, it helps, but your definiton of 'time' still irks me. While I accept that there is a clear difference between substantial change and acccidental change, are you suggesting that ALL change in the physical realm is substantial?

Dave

[Guest JeffCR07]

yes, creation would of course imply time, as (I think) I said in one of my posts. But if "time" exists only as a result of creation/regeneration and death/deterioration, then this would not, in fact, prove any sort of problem. Time did not exist before creation, but did exist afterwards.

I would argue that mere "change" does not imply time, unless you are defining time in such a narrow manner as to be merely a vague notion of "before" and "after" - I would consider that less Time and more Cause and Effect.

Under my proposition, motion and change do not create Time as we know it, but rather, it is only the "limiting factors" that create Time. Movement and change are not limiting factors, but rather, creation/destruction and regeneration/destruction are. If one could move without causing destruction to ones body, and if physical change can occur (like speaking) without any thought of death, then I would posit that Time as we know it would cease. Remember, Time is a construct of Man, and as soon as it becomes irrelevant (like when we undergo the Final Theosis) it ceases to be relevant and to exist.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[qfnol31]

Time is the moving of the future through the present into the past.

I believe that is St. Augustine.

The present is a participation in Eternity, where God is, but is not eternity. Think of a rainbow. Each part participates in the white original light, but is only a small fragment of it.

If there is a future where we will be praising God, and there is a time where we're praising God, and we were praising God, then there would have to be time just because of the past aspect. I hope that's not too confusing.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/23 - St. Apollinarius of Ravenna

No, not all physical change amounts to substantial change; there are some changes that are accidental.

Like all good philosophers, though, I won't try to make a hard-and-fast rule over what is substantial and what is accidental; if you want, though, take a look at Aristotle's [i]Physics[/i]. I'll have to pull out my ancient philosophy notes, but I think that a substance is that which has priority, quiddity, and something else that I can't remember...

Check Aristotle.

[qfnol31]

I shall then.

[qfnol31]

I know this is a big bump, but I was just reading the Baltimore Catechism and had a comment on the original question. The question in the Catechism was: "Does not the Sacrament of Penance remit all punishment due to sin?" The answer was: "The Sacrament of Penance remits the eternal punishemtn due to sin, but it does not always remit the [b]temporal punishment[/b] which God requires as satisfaction for our sins.

I just think that implies Purgatory, which remits the rest of these punishments, would be temporal, meaning in time.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 23 2004, 09:27 AM']JMJ
7/23 - St. Apollinarius of Ravenna

No, not all physical change amounts to substantial change; there are some changes that are accidental.

Like all good philosophers, though, I won't try to make a hard-and-fast rule over what is substantial and what is accidental; if you want, though, take a look at Aristotle's [i]Physics[/i].  I'll have to pull out my ancient philosophy notes, but I think that a substance is that which has priority, quiddity, and something else that I can't remember...

Check Aristotle. [/quote]
Pio Nono,

I just wanted you to know I never forgot your advice. We're beginning the Physics and Metaphysics this week, but I found another answer in Holscher and Augustine. "everything that is moved in space can be moved only if it is also moved in time," which is in regards to the body.



I know, I really bumped this...