Soul Gender?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM']No, I don't think I am.  However, I do have a problem because any and all characteristics dependent on the hylomorphic composite will necessarily be annihilated (as I understand what you're saying) at the point of death.  That is what I have a problem with.  There's nothing preventing those characteristics from being completely different at the Resurrection.

[. . .]
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Based upon these comments it appears that you deny the importance of the dogma of the resurrection of the body. The Church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the soul is not complete without the body, and that man is a hylomorphic being composed of both body and soul.

Now if the soul has the "characteristics" that you want to assign to it, three things follow: (1) the body becomes unnecessary and one falls into the heresy of neo-Platonic dualism; (2) the soul and its operations would be identified, and man would no longer possess any potencies, because all of his operations would be simultaneously in act, and in the Western Church this is the heresy of making man divine by nature, because man, like God, would be "pure act"; and (3) the soul would no longer be a pure simple spiritual substance, and there would be as many substantial forms within man as there are operations, and this was condemned as heretical at the Eighth General Council (869-870).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM'][. . .]

Also, the simplicity of the soul seems to preclude perfection or imperfection of it.  Thus, Purgatory would make no sense. 

[. . .]
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The unity and simplicity of the soul indicates its relative perfection as a created spiritual substance. Sins, both venial and mortal, are not substances, and so purgatory does not involve any kind of substantial change in the soul as venial attachments are removed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM'][. . .]
As a for instance,
Jeff has a certain "Jeffie-ness" about him, so to speak.  One of the particular things about Jeff is that Jeff is a guy.  Now, with your understanding, it would seem that he could be given a glorified woman's body and be Jenny at the Resurrection.  I'm sure that he wouldn't appreciate that.  Furthermore, in the interim period between death and Resurrection, your understanding would seem to imply that Jeff's soul would have no sort of consciousness to be able to think "I am Jeff" or "I had a male body that died; I wonder what my glorified body will be like?" or even revel in the Beatific Vision.  It would seem like the interim would be more like an anonymous soul with "Jeff's soul" on it, to make sure that God matched up the right soul with an appropriate glorified body.  Then all of a sudden, what would we have?  Would that person, who is an apparent new person, be Jeff?  How could we know?  Would he still have "Jeffie-ness"?  Your understanding would seem to leave that in the air.
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This example is non-sensical, because the Church teaches that in the resurrection a man (or a woman) receives back the exact same body that he (or she) had in this life. The only difference between now and then is that the resurrected body is glorified.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:14 AM']This example is non-sensical, because the Church teaches that in the resurrection a man (or a woman) receives back the exact same body that he (or she) had in this life.  The only difference between now and then is that the resurrected body is glorified.
[right][snapback]634384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How is it possible to have the exact same body if that which makes up the body (atoms joined together to make molecules, etc.) gets reused? It would be hard to argue from a scientific standpoint that they don't. The most obvious case is a cannibal. If a cannibal became Catholic and then died in the state of grace, would the flesh he ate from someone else's body be his in the Resurrection or the other person's? If so, would one person have a hole in them? Furthermore, if it is the exact same body, then how can it be glorified? Being glorified implies that it is different than before.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:19 AM']How is it possible to have the exact same body if that which makes up the body (atoms joined together to make molecules, etc.) gets reused? It would be hard to argue from a scientific standpoint that they don't.  The most obvious case is a cannibal.  If a cannibal became Catholic and then died in the state of grace, would the flesh he ate from someone else's body be his in the Resurrection or the other person's?  If so, would one person have a hole in them?  Furthermore, if it is the exact same body, then how can it be glorified?  Being glorified implies that it is different than before.
[right][snapback]634553[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is called a supernatural miracle, and it is [i]de fide[/i]; thus, to deny it is to fall into heresy (cf. Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, no. 1). Moreover, the glorification of the body does not involve the destruction or alteration of physical matter; instead, it involves a change in the principle of life which animates the body.

[scardella]

Well, you're claiming that the person is the same person (except perfected) in the Resurrection, a statement with which I agree. However, that person is not necessarily the same person that existed before, according to my understanding of what you've said about the soul, body and unified person.

According to you, sexuality is not in the soul, not in the body, and not composed of elements from the soul and the body. Furthermore, the only thing that "survives" death is the soul. The body decomposes, and the bones can be burned or otherwise consumed. According to you, Jeff's body has no sexuality of its own, so, theoretically, it could be a man's body or a woman's body. Also according to you, the person ceases to be after death, since it only exists in the union of the soul and the body. Finally, according to you, the soul has no sexuality of its own. Therefore, from your statements, I see no reason that the person who is from Jeff's soul and Jeff's glorified body has to be Jeff and not a theoretical Jenny.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 01:41 PM']It is called a supernatural miracle, and it is [i]de fide[/i]; thus, to deny it is to fall into heresy (cf. Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, no. 1).  Moreover, the glorification of the body does not involve the destruction or alteration of physical matter; instead, it involves a change in the principle of life which animates the body.
[right][snapback]634581[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree that part of the glorification of the body involves becoming a spiritual (ie infused with spirit) body. However, does it not also imply that the body is whole and healthy? Are you implying that people w/ (for instance) leprosy will continue to have it in their glorified body?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:41 AM']Well, you're claiming that the person is the same person (except perfected) in the Resurrection, a statement with which I agree.  However, that person is not necessarily the same person that existed before, according to my understanding of what you've said about the soul, body and unified person.
[right][snapback]634582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This comment is contrary to the teaching of the Church and as such it is heretical. The same soul and the same body are reunited in the resurrection, otherwise it would be a different person. It is the principle of life that is different, not the substance of the resurrected being.

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:41 AM']According to you, sexuality is not in the soul, not in the body, and not composed of elements from the soul and the body.  Furthermore, the only thing that "survives" death is the soul.  The body decomposes, and the bones can be burned or otherwise consumed.  According to you, Jeff's body has no sexuality of its own, so, theoretically, it could be a man's body or a woman's body.  Also according to you, the person ceases to be after death, since it only exists in the union of the soul and the body.  Finally, according to you, the soul has no sexuality of its own.  Therefore, from your statements, I see no reason that the person who is from Jeff's soul and Jeff's glorified body has to be Jeff and not a theoretical Jenny.
[right][snapback]634582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sexuality is an operation of the composite being that is founded upon bodily existence. As an operation of the composite being it must be distinct from the substantial form (soul) or innumerable theological and philosophical problems result.

The human person is by definition the union of body and soul, and he only exists in potency (i.e., as far as his proper composite existence is concerned) after death and prior to the resurrection. Once the resurrection occurs he is fully in act again.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:47 AM']I agree that part of the glorification of the body involves becoming a spiritual (ie infused with spirit) body.  However, does it not also imply that the body is whole and healthy? Are you implying that people w/ (for instance) leprosy will continue to have it in their glorified body?
[right][snapback]634590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As long as you don't mean that man becomes "spiritual" in the sense of a negation of his material existence, but that his spiritual life in Christ means that both his body and soul are animated by the divine Spirit unto everlasting life, then we agree. But if you mean that his body is changed into some kind of ethereal spiritual substance, that would be a form of the gnostic heresy, and as such it has been condemned by the Church.

The resurrected body is the very same body that a man had in his earthly life, only it is glorified, i.e., it is animated by the divine Spirit and participates in the divine energies, and so it is perfect; in other words, it suffers none of the defects that are a consequence of the fall of Adam. That is why it is called "glorified."

[Apotheoun]

It is [i]de fide[/i] that man has a single spiritual soul (cf. the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople IV, canon 11), while it is also true that the operations of the composite being (i.e., man) are many. It follows from the unity and simplicity of the substantial form (i.e., the soul), that there is a distinction between it and the operations of the composite being, because otherwise there would be as many souls in man as there are operations, and that is clearly false. Consequently, the rational, sensitive, and generative operations (including masculinity and femininity) of the composite being cannot be identified with the soul, for to make that identification would be to fall under the anathema of the Eighth General Council (869-870 A.D.).

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 01:56 PM']As long as you don't mean that man becomes "spiritual" in the sense of a negation of his material existence, but that his spiritual life in Christ means that both his body and soul are animated by the divine Spirit unto everlasting life, then we agree.  But if you mean that his body is changed into some kind of ethereal spiritual substance, that would be a form of the gnostic heresy, and as such it has been condemned by the Church.

The resurrected body is the very same body that a man had in his earthly life, only it is glorified, i.e., it is animated by the divine Spirit and participates in the divine energies, and so it is perfect; in other words, it suffers none of the defects that are a consequence of the fall of Adam.  That is why it is called "glorified."
[right][snapback]634606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agree w/ Paragraph 1; I still want to know how one or both people won't have holes in them. Are you saying that God adds (creates new matter) what would be missing? I'm not opposed to that, but then I wouldn't say that it's truly the "exact same body" in a strictly literal sense. I'm fairly sure that at least part of the matter used in one person's body gets reused in someone elses later on.

[scardella]

hold on, I'm jumping the gun...

Edited July 7, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 12:13 PM']Agree w/ Paragraph 1; I still want to know how one or both people won't have holes in them.  Are you saying that God adds (creates new matter) what would be missing?  I'm not opposed to that, but then I wouldn't say that it's truly the "exact same body" in a strictly literal sense.  I'm fairly sure that at least part of the matter used in one person's body gets reused in someone elses later on.
[right][snapback]634629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem here is that you are thinking naturally, not supernaturally. The resurrection is not a natural event, it is a miracle brought about by divine power. In other words, you cannot simply reduce it to some kind of everyday natural occurrence. It is a revealed truth that man will rise from the dead with the exact same soul and body that he had in his earthly life. Now, can this miracle be proven by reason? No, because it is suprarational.

I know you have a problem with this doctrine, but it was solemnly defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.), and so to deny it is to fall into heresy.

[scardella]

According to what you're saying, because there is no continuity of the person, and that the characteristics of the person are not composed of characteristics of his body and soul interacting, you can't say that the person after the Resurrection is necessarily the same person as the person before his death. It's like you are implying that these characteristics appear out of nowhere, and that makes no sense.

In your conception of it, God would have to re-imbue the person with those specific characteristics (aka his "Jeffiness") when He reunited his soul with his glorified body. Otherwise he'd be someone else.

Edited July 7, 2005 by scardella

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 02:39 PM']The problem here is that you are thinking naturally, not supernaturally. The resurrection is not a natural event, it is a miracle brought about by divine power. In other words, you cannot simply reduce it to some kind of everyday natural occurrence. It is a revealed truth that man will rise from the dead with the exact same soul and body that he had in his earthly life. Now, can this miracle be proven by reason? No, because it is suprarational.

I know you have a problem with this doctrine, but it was solemnly defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.), and so to deny it is to fall into heresy.
[right][snapback]634660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The problem is that it's not something that I can't wrap my head around, like the Trinity. It seems [b]contradictory[/b] to say that they will be whole and separate, yet share some of the same matter. The only possible thing that I could think of is that the matter itself poly-locates in heaven, which God could make happen.

[scardella]

Oh, and your explanation still doesn't seem to explain Purgatory. It would seem that a soul in Purgatory couldn't pray for others, as it is said, and be perfected, which is the whole point of Purgatory.

Edited July 7, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 02:33 PM']Oh, and your explanation still doesn't seem to explain Purgatory.  It would seem that a soul in Purgatory couldn't pray for others, as it is said, and be perfected, which is the whole point of Purgatory.
[right][snapback]634793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The only way that my explanation fails is if you have a view of sin that is based on Luther's doctrine of depravity. Man's essential nature (body and soul) was not changed at all by the fall of Adam, because man lost nothing that was natural to his existence.

You seem to be confusing ontological perfection with growth in moral perfection.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 02:31 PM']The problem is that it's not something that I can't wrap my head around, like the Trinity.  It seems [b]contradictory[/b] to say that they will be whole and separate, yet share some of the same matter.  The only possible thing that I could think of is that the matter itself poly-locates in heaven, which God could make happen.
[right][snapback]634791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You can choose to be a heretic if you wish, but I will go with the [i]de fide[/i] teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council. The resurrection of the body exceeds the ability of man to comprehend through reason, and this is true of every single mystery of the faith, because none of them are reducible to human reason.

It is better to hold the faith of the Church than to speculation on how the mystery of the resurrection of the body occurs.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 02:18 PM']According to what you're saying, because there is no continuity of the person, and that the characteristics of the person are not composed of characteristics of his body and soul interacting, you can't say that the person after the Resurrection is necessarily the same person as the person before his death.  It's like you are implying that these characteristics appear out of nowhere, and that makes no sense.

In your conception of it, God would have to re-imbue the person with those specific characteristics (aka his "Jeffiness") when He reunited his soul with his glorified body.  Otherwise he'd be someone else.
[right][snapback]634775[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where have I said that there is "no continuity?" The soul, as one part of the human person, is in continuity with the man it informs. Just as the body, once the resurrection occurs, is in perfect continuity with the human person whose body it is.

I think our discussion is at an impasse. Because it is a doctrine of the faith that one and the same person rises from the dead; since it is the same soul, and the same body, it is the same person.

When the same body and the same soul are reunited in the resurrection all of the original operations of the hylomorphic being are there too.

Finally, I cannot subscribe to your theological speculations because they are contrary to the teachings of two different ecumenical councils.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 05:11 PM']Where have I said that there is "no continuity?"  The soul, as one part of the human person, is in continuity with the man it informs.  Just as the body, once the resurrection occurs, is in perfect continuity with the human person whose body it is.[/quote]

You're saying there's no continuity by saying that the human person is no longer when he dies.

[quote]I think our discussion is at an impasse.  Because it is a doctrine of the faith that one and the same person rises from the dead; since it is the same soul, and the same body, it is the same person.

When the same body and the same soul are reunited in the resurrection all of the original operations of the hylomorphic being are there too.[/quote]

That is only necessarily true if the operations of a person arise necessarily from the particular soul and particular body, which is what I've been maintaining.

[quote]Finally, I cannot subscribe to your theological speculations because they are contrary to the teachings of two different ecumenical councils.
[right][snapback]634831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not holding anything contrary to the Vienne Council, and you haven't posted the relevant text of the Lateran council. I'd be happy to read it if you post it the text or provide a link, plus where to find the relevant text in the link. I can accept the poly-location idea, though.

Edited July 8, 2005 by scardella