Resurrection at the end of time

[Paphnutius]

First , then Just some quick thoughts...[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 20 2006, 09:15 PM']"Those babies who have not been baptized are baptized by their very death, because they have never turned against Jesus and [b]surely reach out in their innocence,[/b] at their very death, to the Trinity who are full of love for them. Their death is their baptism into the Trinity."[/quote]It is called original sin.


[quote]"We used to think that purgatory was time after death and fire and punishment for our sins until we "made up" to God for our sins. But this cannot be correct, because there is no time after death, and we could never make up to God for our sins anyway. If we have perfect love at our death, we have let Jesus make our love more and more perfect so that life itself was our purgatory."[/quote]Isnt purgatory de fide?

[quote]"God does not and cannot create Hell, [b]because the essence of Hell is hatred[/b]. There is a Hell, and we create it by our own freedom... we know that there is a Hell, but we do not know if any human person is in it."[/quote]No....the essence of Hell is [i]justice[/i]...

[quote]"[i]Purgatory is not presented in Scripture [/i]but its reality is a theological conclusion based on reflection on Scripture. We need to distinguish the meaning of purgatory from its symbolic images of fire, time of suffering after death. The truth of purgatory is based on the communion of saints: our inseparable union and dependence on one another. The core meaning of purgatory is that the entire Church through its prayer helps those dying in their final encounter with Jesus at death. No one dies alone; all are supported by the whole community. Purgatory, therefore, is a deeply communal experience.
Conclusion: purgatory is not a place, not fire, nor time in suffering. God is our "place" at death. [i]Purgatory is our personal encounter with the Lord at death, an encounter that is purifying and healing: the moment of our final decision for or against the Lord[/i]."
[/quote]I would like to see his/her definition of purgatory found in Scripture...

Sorry but I was just taken aback by all of this. Is the author Catholic?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

It's my prof!

And now I think I have proof she is heterodox (unless I've missed out on a lot of the above converstion).

Point #1 she claimed today that we do have SEPARATE risen bodies. (and claimed it was only theological opinion (though "not a very good one" that our risen bodies are our pre-risen bodies (i.e. my body now) are transformed)

Point#2 she claims that the resurrection of the body is IMMEDIATE (and this is also theological opinion, but a superior one to claiming that our bodies will resurrect at the end of time). she says there are no souls without bodies. There is no "second coming" (because Jesus is with us now)-- all the "end time" stuff is the moment of our death.

She and I had a lot of disagreements in class today it was so frustrating (and hard) to get my point across and be respectful to her when she constantly interrupts, etc.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:50 AM']It's my prof!

And now I think I have proof she is heterodox (unless I've missed out on a lot of the above converstion).

Point #1 she claimed today that we do have SEPARATE risen bodies. (and claimed it was only theological opinion (though "not a very good one" that our risen bodies are our pre-risen bodies (i.e. my body now) are transformed)

Point#2 she claims that the resurrection of the body is IMMEDIATE (and this is also theological opinion, but a superior one to claiming that our bodies will resurrect at the end of time). she says there are no souls without bodies. There is no "second coming" (because Jesus is with us now)-- all the "end time" stuff is the moment of our death.

She and I had a lot of disagreements in class today it was so frustrating (and hard) to get my point across and be respectful to her when she constantly interrupts, etc.
[right][snapback]862732[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What religion is she?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 12:56 PM']What religion is she? 
[right][snapback]862734[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
She's a "byzantine" Dominican Nun. (without a habit)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 21 2006, 11:11 AM']She's a "byzantine" Dominican Nun. (without a habit)
[right][snapback]862739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
sounds like she's just making up her own religion.

The propositions [of hers] that you posted have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. The dogmatic decrees that cappie and I referenced, as well as every one of those Patristic treatises that I posted, are contrary to her beliefs. There is a mountain of Catholic teaching that condemns her views.

And she doesn't even have her terms down. In light of her statement that we get a new "separate" body the term resurrection doesn't really make sense, she's talking about a kind of reincarnation.

She is going against the ancient creeds and the apostolic faith. "I believe in the resurrection of the body" (the meaning of which is unambiguous in the fathers and magisterium), and I believe that Christ will "come again to judge the living and the dead". This is one of the most basic and demonstrably ancient aspects of the Apostolic kerygma. The very essence of the Christian faith is eschatological.

Quite frankly, one could simply proceed according to the principle of [i]sola fide[/i] and have no problem demonstrating the novelty of her views.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Yeah, thanks, L_D.

I e-mailed her with my concerns so hopefully she'll clarify a bit more.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:42 PM']Yeah, thanks, L_D.

I e-mailed her with my concerns so hopefully she'll clarify a bit more.
[right][snapback]862858[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hopefully things don't get too weird. That's too bad that your class is a bit.. different.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

is the Fourth Lateran Council an Ecumenical Council?

How binding is it? Because I'm finding a lot more in its entirety that she is going to disagree with.
[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yep, Lateran IV was the 12th ecumenical council.

There are parts of Latern IV that I disagree with; but the fact is probably the majority of the council is "pastoral" not dogmatic. Besides Vatican II, I would say that Lateran IV was the most "pastoral" council of the Church.
The first few canons pertain to doctrine and are authoritative formulations.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Thought so, thanks.. this is the discussion so far:

[quote name='Fides to prof']I know you're probably thinking "Not again!"... but hopefully this makes better sense. Prior to the readings for class, I'd never come across anything that implied or stated a "risen" body entirely separate and different from my body now (i.e., rather than just my body transformed (/transfigured) at it's resurrection by Christ). Moreover, I had understood it to be a matter de fide... (now, I don't intend to imply that I have read every defining theological work, or especially every theological opinion (I'm more interested in "the facts", anyway).. but I had not previously understood the resurrection of the body to be a theological opinion)

"Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have" (Canon I, Fourth Lateran Council)

"We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854)

Also, the other theory supplied in class (that of a risen body separate from our bodies now) really does seem to be reincarnation to me-- and I am having trouble seeing how this could not be. If I am an embodied person--in this body now. To say that I will have another body at some point would be reincarnation... even if the "body swap" only happens once. And having "two bodies" just seems far too "out there" and a denial of the goodness of matter--this matter, that makes up my body now. I know we specified that risen bodies are physical and material in class, but to say that it's a material entirely different from the material I now am says that there's something "wrong" with this material, rather than with the way I might choose to use it.

Lastly, though this was from "Bermajo's" book, I think... the idea that parousia is not a "second coming". The "Second Coming" isn't necessarily the Protestant "rapture" idea... but part of the Creed-- "Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead". It says nothing to the effect that this "Second Coming" means that He is not with us now, but perhaps (at least, this is how I've previously understood the Second Coming) the Second Coming is a visible coming, as His incarnation was visible? Either way, I'm not too quick to agree with the definition of parousia as excluding a Second Coming... for this would seem to deny part of the Creed.

Sorry for the barrage of questions/confusion again.. just trying to understand. [/quote]

[quote name='prof to Fides *edited*'] My quick response to the first point is just for more clarification about the position "with their own bodies which they have now." In this line of reasoning, what do people do who die and who are waiting for the resurrection of their very own bodies which they have now? Of course, there is no time after death, but if the resurrection means having these very bodies, and these very bodies are in the ground for thousands of years, is there immediate resurrection? And if not, can the person be risen, if his or her pre-risen body is still in the ground? And can there be in heaven "souls" that belong to human persons but not yet united to their risen bodies? A good answer to these questions would help me to respond better! My own clarification about a risen body not being exactly the same as our pre-risen body is that this risen body is created dirctly by the Trinity, just as our pre-risen body is, and this is the risen body intended for us from all eterinity by the Trinity. The risen body, of course, can incorporate elements of our risen body, but since even now the cells in our body constantly change, the body we have not is not at all exactly the body we were born with. In the doctrine of reincarnation, it does not matter which body--animal, etc, my soul gets attached to. There is no Trinity, only self-salvation.[/quote]

[quote name='Fides back to prof']As to the first clarification, I managed to find the text of the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) online through Fordham University ( [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html[/url] ) which is where my first quote "the bodies we have now" came from. Here is its context:
"But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ."
It would seem plausible then, for a human soul to exist apart from the body for a time (though admittedly it would be, in a sense, "incomplete" without its body) given the first statement (which I think was also something I mentioned in my reflection on the reading referring to 1 Peter 3:19)-- I've never had a problem with this (i.e., souls "waiting" for a body), though I am unequipped to explain its "timing" since their is no time with God... what may be a thousand years on earth could be "one day with the Lord" (2 Peter 3:8... forgive me for slightly ripping out its context, though I still think it somewhat can be applicable in this case). Lastly, having souls apart from bodies has never unsettled me because of the definition of death given in the Catechism (CCC 1005) "... In that "departure" which is death the soul is separated from the body. It will be reunited with the body on the day of resurrection of the dead." Again, I don't think I can specify a time frame for the reunion of body and soul (but this wasn't necessarily my main concern... moreso it was that my body, this body I now have will be transfigured to become a glorified body in Christ at the end of time).

My second quote (from the Council of Lyons) was actually from the Catechism (CCC 1017)-- from the "in brief" which is clarified in CCC 997-1001, the best of which is CCC 1000 "This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's [i]transfiguration of our [/i]bodies..." (my emphasis)... and this also leads to some slight disagreement on my part regarding the Parousia as I mentioned before, but I wasn't sure which was merely Bermajo's ideas and that which was not.

I hope that helps clarify my previous e-mail. Thanks again![/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Is this professor Catholic? I forget.. Anyway, it seems rather strange that you are having to debate most basic Catholic doctrines with a Catholic theology professor.

Where do you go to school again?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I just want to make a few quick little comments. I actually have a great deal to say but I'll just touch on a couple little points for starters.

God bless.

[quote name='prof to Fides']My quick response to the first point is just for more clarification about the position "with their own bodies which they have now." In this line of reasoning, what do people do who die and who are waiting for the resurrection of their very own bodies which they have now?
[right][snapback]863455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
For starters this is not a "line of reasoning" it is a central mystery of faith. Second, this "position" is in fact the dogmatic formulation of a revealed truth. And the Church does not suggest that this revealed mystery can be proved via argumentation anymore than the mystery of Christ's own resurrection or the virgin birth. These very bodies which we now have shall be raised, how this is so is not something we can understand. I don't presume to understand a great many things. I don't quite understand how God became Incarnate; I don't understand how Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist; I don't understand how the Holy Spirit dwells in the soul; I don't understand bilocation, incorruptables, the miraculous healing of blindness, the miraculous restoration of missing limbs, or even something as basic as the creation of the cosmos. God wills it and it is so. Sometimes that is the best answer one can have.

[quote name='prof to Fides']Of course, there is no time after death,
[right][snapback]863455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In a sense this is true, but created beings are diastemic and thus in a sense always temporal. We speak of the world to come as eternity or aeveternity, but this is not the same as atemporal or pretemporal, which is ultimately only true of God.

[quote name='prof to Fides']but if the resurrection means having these very bodies, and these very bodies are in the ground for thousands of years, is there immediate resurrection? And if not, can the person be risen, if his or her pre-risen body is still in the ground? And can there be in heaven "souls" that belong to human persons but not yet united to their risen bodies?
[right][snapback]863455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The resurrection of the flesh occurs at the end of the ages when Christ comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. This is the parousia, the epiphaneia, the apokalypsis.

[quote name='prof to Fides']A good answer to these questions would help me to respond better! My own clarification about a risen body not being exactly the same as our pre-risen body is that this risen body is created dirctly by the Trinity, just as our pre-risen body is, and this is the risen body intended for us from all eterinity by the Trinity. The risen body, of course, can incorporate elements of our risen body, but since even now the cells in our body constantly change, the body we have not is not at all exactly the body we were born with.
[right][snapback]863455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
These statements are a bit unclear. It is possible that your prof is not in heresy, but just in need of clarification. It is true that the risen body will not be "exactly the same as our pre-risen body". To say that this risen body is "created directly by the Trinity, just as our pre-risen body" could be a bit problematic since it seems to destroy the continuity that is affirmed in the Apostolic teaching. The glorified body is our current body in a glorified state, not a body created ex nihilo or something. But the profs statement could be interpreted in a number of ways.
Her statement that "the risen body...can incorporate elements of our [current] body" sounds close to the speculations of certain theologians. These speculations were never condemned so I don't see a glaring problem here; although I personally reject that line of speculation.

[quote name='prof to Fides']In the doctrine of reincarnation, it does not matter which body--animal, etc, my soul gets attached to. There is no Trinity, only self-salvation.
[right][snapback]863455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is simply false. There are many versions of reincarnation but the basic tennets of reincarnation (or metempsychosis) are not married to any particular conception of God or soteriological paradigm.
There are flavors of metempsychosis which reject the idea of reincarnation in non-human bodies. There are versions of metempsychosis which hold that the precise body in which one becomes incarnate is determined by that person's acts in previous lives. Further, the general idea of a Triune God, and of salvation from God are not categorically opposed to a doctrine of metempsychosis.
Anyway, there is virtually nothing true about that statement. In the most general terms, the doctrine of metempsychosis (reincarnation) asserts that after death the soul enters into a new embodiment. It makes the body quite extrinsic to the person, whereas what's distinct about the Judeo-Christian view is precisely that the soul and body as composite constitute the full reality of the person. The view that after death the human soul becomes incarnate in a new body in such a way that there is discontinuity with the first body seems to be nothing more than a form of metempsychosis. The prof's post did not even address the issues but tried to side step with completely false statements.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Fides,

Here is some stuff that might help in your discussion with the prof. My comments will be in [color=blue]blue[/color].

[b]Prologue[/b]

[color=blue]The most ancient creeds and the writings of the earliest fathers testify to the earthiness of the resurrection. To understand it as merely spiritual, or as a new and distinct body or flesh rather than that flesh which we now have, is to depart from the belief of the Church in her earliest days (to say nothing of proclaimed dogma). If those sorts of views were what the early witnesses wanted to convey they would certainly not have chosen to use the words that they did. In quoting from the old Roman Creed, Tertullian speaks of "the restoration of the flesh", and of the judgment of the dead "through resurrection of the flesh". The early Creeds and fathers used phrases that were at odds with heretical ideas of the afterlife which sought to diminish the doctrine of the resurrection. The early apologists asserted this doctrine in the face of pagan skeptics who were scandalized by such a concept. The pagan view can be summarized with a couple quotes:
"[i]The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'[/i]" - Celsus (Against the Christians)
"[i]The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods[/i]." - Plutarch
Augustine obviously knew that this doctrine was a scandal to those without the faith since he noted that "[i]no doctrine of the Christian Faith is so vehemently and so obstinately opposed as the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh[/i]".
Certainly in the face of such attacks against this doctrine the fathers would have attempted to make it more palatable with a "second body" doctrine if it were at all possible; but it is not. The Apostolic teaching is crystal clear, even if mysterious in nature. One ancient Christian author who did dabble in a second body theory was Origen. He also held to the pre-existence of souls and dabbled with metempsychosis (reincarnation) of the Platonic sort. Needless to say the man has a heresy named after him. The fathers were not ignorant of this perspective and it was categorically rejected as a novelty that is inconsistent with the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition. But does the fact that we cannot understand how God could create this universe [i]ex nihilo [/i]mean that it cannot be? Why should we presume to understand how it is that God 'makes all things new' when we do not even comprehend how it is that God made anything at all?[/color]

[b]Church Teaching[/b]

"I believe in .. the resurrection of the body."
Latin: Credo in carnis resurrectionem.
Greek: σαρκος ανάστασιν, [i]sarkos anastasis[/i]
- [i]Symbolum Apostolorum [/i]

[color=blue][i]sarx[/i], or [i]sarkos[/i] can mean the body, the flesh as in the muscles and tissues of the body, or man's nature in a general sense.
[i]anastasis [/i]means a raising up, to stand up or arise, a restoration, etc.
This choice of words strongly puts forth the idea of our very flesh being reanimated. The image of Christ calling forth Lazarus from the tomb comes to mind. The impetus of this language was precisely to combat over-spiritual ideas of the after-life which excluded the reality of our very flesh.[/color]

"We look for the resurrection of the dead"
- [i]Nicene Creed[/i]

[color=blue]While the wording of the Apostle's Creed silenced those who held that this earthly body would not be raised from its oblivion to share in the glory of Christ, the wording of the Nicene Creed was effective in silencing those Milleniarists who believed that they could attain heaven, and achieve glorification, without passing through death.[/color]

"At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works."
- [i]Athanasian Creed[/i]

The only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead and to reward all according to their deeds, both the reprobate and the elect, all of whom will rise with their own proper bodies which they now bear, so that they may receive according to their deeds, whether good or evil.
- [i]Lateran IV, Canon I[/i]

Thus, according to the model of our Head, we profess that there is a true bodily resurrection of all the dead... we shall rise in this very body in which we now live and are and move.
- [i]Toledo IX[/i]

The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.
- [i]Lyon II[/i]

Moreover, we declare that… all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ.
- [i]Benedictus Deus[/i]

By "the resurrection of the body" is meant that at the end of the world the bodies of all men will rise from the earth and be united again to their souls, nevermore to be separated.
- [i]Baltimore Catechism, 176[/i]

The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.
- [i]CCC, 990[/i]

Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. "The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live."
- [i]CCC, 991[/i]

The Pharisees and many of the Lord's contemporaries hoped for the resurrection. Jesus teaches it firmly. To the Sadducees who deny it he answers, "Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?" Faith in the resurrection rests on faith in God who "is not God of the dead, but of the living."
- [i]CCC, 993[/i]

From the beginning, Christian faith in the resurrection has met with incomprehension and opposition. "On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body." It is very commonly accepted that the life of the human person continues in a spiritual fashion after death. But how can we believe that this body, so clearly mortal, could rise to everlasting life?
- [i]CCC, 996[/i]

Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself";553 but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body
- CCC, 999

He invites them in this way to recognize that He is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which He appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of His passion. Yet, at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time, but able to be present how and when He wills; for Christ's humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm
- CCC, 645

We believe that, by death, the soul is separated from the body, and that on the Last Day our bodies will be re-united with our souls in the Resurrection of the Dead and will live forever.
- [i]The Simplified Catechism[/i]

[b]Postscript[/b]

[color=blue]I'm also putting together a document that covers in-depth the Scriptural proclamation of this doctrine, as well as a presentation of the Jewish view, the concept of resurrection in the Rabbincal thought during the time of Christ and the Apostles, as well as a little summary of theological speculation on these matters in the history of the Church with an emphasis on the Patristic era. I might not have a chance to post this stuff until next weekend (I'll be out of town all week).

My stuff is just really scattered and disorganized at the moment but I'll at least post some Scripture verses worth checking out:[/color]

Job 19:25-26; John 6:54; I Thessalonians 4:16-17; 2 Tim. 2:17,18; 2 Tim. 1:10; Matthew 22:31,32; Matthew 10:28; Job 19:25-27; Psa. 17:15; Isa. 26:19-21; Dan. 12:2; Hos. 13:14; John 5:25-29; 6:39-40; Mark 12:18-27; Acts 17:18,32; 26:8; Rom. 8:23; 1 Thes. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Phil. 3:21; Heb 6:2; Rev 22:12; Daniel 12:2,12; 1 Sam. 2:6; John 5:28-29; 6:39,44,54; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 15:12; Mt 5:29-30

God bless you.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

L_D. You totally rock.

I think my prof would freak out if I e-mailed her all of that (though, if she continues to say we get separate new bodies I think I might have to formulate that all in my own words (and point her to the Catechism some more).

For the record, yes, the prof is Catholic (a "Byzantine" Dominican Nun to be exact... ) she's a nice lady, a little odd a times (which is why I said I think she's nuts before), but aside from this, my biggest problem is her language regarding the Trinity (very plural).

The only future problem I can foresee is the possibility that she will say (as did of the Nicene Creed) is that the language of the Catechism is meant to be "symbolic". When the Creed says "on the third day He rose again" (she says it's symbolic language because Christ had an immediate resurrection) and 3 is like the number 7 in the Scriptures, very symbolic. And she may very well also say the same of the patristic quotes.

She tries to be a good prof (I can say that even if she mostly irks me), but sometimes it seems as though she teaches a lot of emotional feel-good mumbo-jumbo rather than what the Church has already set forth as Truth.

[cmotherofpirl]

How does she know Christ had an immediate resurrection?
As Father G would say, "what, she was there?"

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 23 2006, 11:46 AM']How does she know Christ had an immediate resurrection?
[right][snapback]863932[/snapback][/right][/quote]
yea, that's news to me too. i thought he spent the interim between his death and his resurrection ministering to the souls in the bosom of Abraham.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 23 2006, 01:11 PM']yea, that's news to me too. i thought he spent the interim between his death and his resurrection ministering to the souls in the bosom of Abraham.
[right][snapback]864015[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I put this in my "reflection" on our reading (1 Peter 3:19), but her stance against even the language of the Creed (i.e., "on the third day He rose again") is that the "Creedal language is symbolic" and then compared 3 to the number 7 in the Bible and claims this is only a symbolic reference.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

We have our test on Saturday (which is why I'm trying so hard to get this cleared up (but I'm not sure... I still haven't heard back from her yet).

But going over the "notes" where the test questions come from, I have a feeling she and I are going to disagree some more... (I'll write her answers to get the question points, but I'll write really big along the side... "I DISAGREE!"

[quote name='study sheet for test']""He rose on the 3rd day": "3rd day" is symbolic in the OT for God's saving power. It is possible that the resurrection of Jesus occurred immediately at His death, as John intimates [b](i.e., John's Gospel says Jesus gave up His "spirit"), [/b]but Jesus waited to transform His pre-risen body into His risen body, so that people would know that He truly died."[/quote]

[quote]Ascension on the "40th day": 40 is symbolic of a period of preparation during which Jesus prepared His followers to recognize His invisible, intimate presence within them; the Ascension could have happened on the same day as the resurrection, as John intimates.[/quote]

[quote]hell: not the Trinity's creation, because it is a created persons' choice for eternal hatred and isolation[/quote]

[quote]particular judgment: at the moment of our death, we judge ourselves by our own decision for or against the Trinity[/quote]

[quote]Parousia: not a "second coming" but the full manifestation of the Lord's presence and glory at the end of time[/quote]

[quote]Limbo: a past theological theory about a natural place [b](I think she means "neutral")[/b] of happiness for unbaptized children. This theory is now repudiated. Babies are taken into Heaven by their own choice at death.[/quote]


Oy vey.

Class wasn't nearly this crazy last semester!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='prof to Fides']Actually, I am very sure that we are not in disagreement on the dogma of
our resurrection (that we ourselves will rise from the dead, and that we will
have risen bodies). The difference, it seems to me, is in  theological opinion
about when and how this occurs. Your points about when and how our resurrection
take place are certainly fine. But just be sure that when you hold one important
theological opinion (in this case about when and how) that you can coherently
explain other questions that arise because of that opinion. For example, you
still do not address the question of whether and how someone who died thousands
of years of ago, and his or her body is still in the ground, can be in heaven
now. Or is no one but the Lord Jesus and Our Blessed Mother in heaven with their
risen bodies? And if there are others in heaven right now, even those who have
died thousands of years ago, and their pre-risen bodies are still in the ground,
how can they be in heaven. Or do you hold that people can be in heaven as
disembodied souls? If so, they are not perfect in their humanity, and thus not
completely in heaven. (I am just trying to point out that holding one
theological opinion about one point always raises other questions about other
important points, and the theological position we  hold needs to have true
intellectual consistency.

    In terms of the two quotes you gave about our rising with our very own
bodies, I would answer that the real point of the conciliar document is that we
ourselves rise, and we rise with a true human body that is irreplaceable and
unique to us because it is direclty created by the Trinity.  (As I pointed out,
even the very body we have now is completely different in its cellular
composition from the body we were born with. This is one reason that Aaron, who
used to major in biology, has no problem at all with my theological opinion (and
it is only that, a theological opinion) because it has an intellectual
consistency about it--something that all the doctrines of faith have, since they
are true, and one truth cannot be contradictory to another truth, and in fact,
one truth is consistent intellectually with other truths).

    One important point about interpreting Council documents is ascertaining the
error to which it was responding, and therefore the precise point of the
declaration--what was it trying to teach, and why. This same kind of
interpretation is applied to Scripture--ascertaining the theological point the
human author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is making, usually in response to a
community need or problem. The Council surely was responding to the error that
we would not have bodies in heaven (as many religions believe--we are just
"souls." It is also responding to the error that we could be united to any
number of bodies, indiscriminately--as in the error or reincarnation.  I would
point out that the Catholic Catechism, which surely could have used that
conciliar text, did not. The Catechism is purposely vague about when the
resurrection of the body occurs ("on the day of the resurrection of the dead").
The Catechism, which is surely quite precise on issues which call for this
precision doctrinely,  purposely does not make a statement about the
"resurrection of the dead on the last day" --which it certainly could have done.

  So, my conclusion would be that we surely must hold to the truth of the
doctrines of the faith, but we can have diversity of theological opinion about
matters that truly are matters of theological opinion. I hold with you that we
ourselves shall rise from the dead, and that we will have risen, glorious
bodies, and that our risen glorious bodies are created directly by the Trinity,
just as our pre-risen bodies are, and that they are unique, irreplaceable, and
individual to us. Where we differ theologically is whether for us, to rise from
the dead, means that the exact matter of our present pre-risen body needs to be
the matter that composes the transformed risen body. Since our pre-risen bodies
even now are not composed of the same matter as they were years ago, it is not a
problem for me to believe, as a theological opinion, that our risen bodies do
not have to be composed of the matter that composes our pre-risen bodies.

      It also does not hold theological consistency for me to believe that there
are disembodied souls in heaven, awaiting re-union with their bodies which will
be transformed at the end of time. That would mean that billions of people are
either in heaven right now as disembodied souls (Thomas himself says that we
truly are incomplete without our bodies) or that billions of people are
somewhere else, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies. The opinion you hold
is surely valid, but for me personally it raises too many other questions that
do not have an intellectual consistency with other truths that we hold.

  Remember how Thomas stresses that we need to give compelling intellectual
reasons for our faith--since our faith proclaims truth, and all truth is
consistent with itself (otherwise, we "hold truth in empty vessels"). For me,
personally, the intellectual consistency is missing in the theological opinion
that you propose, though surely it is an opinon worthy to be held. Other
important questions that arise from your position seem to me, at least, to be
answered not with intellectual consistency, but rather with the kind of answer
that the Franciscan John Duns Scotus, would give: that the divine Persons of the
Trinity can do anything They will to do (like gathering all the cells from all
the world of our pre-risen bodies, which after a billion years, have already
become different matter). I confess that, as Thomas remarks, this kind of answer
which relies on the will of the Lord rather than on the primacy of the
intellectual consistency of everything that the Trinity do, is not satisfying to
me as a theologian.

  So there you have it!  We both hold the truth of the doctrine, but differ in
our theological opinions about when and how this tremendous event of our
resurrection occurs. (Have you talked with Aaron about this position? I
think--but I may be wrong!--that precisely because of his biological background,
he finds more intellectual consistency in the theological position that I have
been taking). And the Catholic Catechism itself purposesly does not pronounce on
these questions.

    About the Parousia--truthfully, I think that we are saying the same thing. I
agree with you that there is a certain sense in which the Lord "will come again"
and I surely think that you agree with me that the Lord has never left us and
therefore will not "come again" in the sense of having gone and then one day
returning. What the Parousia will bring is His full manifestation as Lord of the
Universe, and in that sense He will "come again" as never before--because He
will be maniifested to the entire universe, clearly, unamiguously, as never
before. But He surely will not come again in the sense that He has left us at
the Ascension and awaits the time when He will return. I cannot imagine that we
disagree about this--especially in light of the Lord's intimate presence with us
now, and most especially in the Eucharist.

      Now, I must go! Probably we will agree to hold differing opinions about
the when and how of our resurrection (again, the Catholic Catechism itself
purposely leaves this question open) and hold together to the truth of our faith
about the fact of our resurrection! The Trinity bless and keep you. I am very
happy that you meditate on these matters, and want to gain more clarity![/quote]
Gah.

[phatcatholic]