Fides_et_Ratio Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 23 2006, 09:12 PM'] [right][snapback]864287[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's me. I'm responding again (and thinking of changing my research paper from the communion of saints to the resurrection of the body and the Parousia)... We shall see. Somethings, if they were just tweaked a bit, would make some sense... but other than that...
phatcatholic Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 23 2006, 09:19 PM']Somethings, if they were just tweaked a bit, would make some sense... but other than that... [right][snapback]864293[/snapback][/right] [/quote] see, that's the thing, modern biblical scholarship almost seems purposefully ambiguous, like it could go either way, perhaps in an attempt to be more "tolerant" or "ecumenical." what happened to being unabashadly catholic? you should read the Haydock commentary sometime. its a breath of fresh air :
Fides_et_Ratio Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 One more round... [quote name='Fides to prof round 3']That was a pretty long response for not responding! (haha). Thanks, Sister ******, for your patience with me... However, I am still not satisified (though, I don't mean to imply that it's your job to satisfy my curiousity). Let me first say however, that the "biological" implications do not seem to me to be a problem. I too, originally started out at Steubenville as a Biology/Pre-Med major and didn't switch to philosophy & theology until after I read "Fides et Ratio". The reason the biological implications don't trouble me is that I cannot say the entire biological make-up of a transfigured (/risen) body (except to say that it is still MY body). And it seems to be somewhat irrelevant in detailed aspects. The PROBLEM I'm still having trouble understanding is the double-body view of having a separate body (i.e., a pre-risen body that is left to rot in the ground, and a risen body entirely separated from this pre-risen body)... for if we recieve a new (entirely separate) body, then there is no resurrection of the body, only a reincarnation (whether that body was set out from my creation for me, or not; if I get an entirely new and separate body it's not resurrection (for this flesh "rots in the ground"), but one-time reincarnation limited to human bodies). I think that this is the crux of my dilemna and understanding. There is no resurrection unless this body, rotting in the grave (etc.) RESURRECTS "at the end of time". Rotting corpses in the ground that turn to dust and become the cells in other living things are our observations "this side of the fence", so to speak... Who's to say that the God who created the world ex nihilo cannot pull together particles smaller than atoms or quarks to resurrect the dead? I can't say "how" except to say that He's God... (And I don't think we're talking so much "cellular" as our cells flake off all the time and regenerate new cells, but more of a genetic (i.e., DNA) make-up that is present only in my cells and each successive generation of MY cells in this body) As to people who died thousands of years ago... I don't see a problem in saying that Jesus and our Blessed Mother are the only ones who possess bodies in Heaven. The rest of the Saints in Heaven eagerly await the resurrection of the dead at the end of time (i.e., CCC 997 "...and the soul goes to meet God while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body"). We pray that the "souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace"... and we pray for the "poor souls in purgatory" etc. (as well as 1 Peter 3:19 again... "the spirits in prison") Are they incomplete? Perhaps. But all is "incomplete" until the Parousia, when Christ "comes again to judge the living and the dead"-- the particular judgment for those who have died previously will stand during this General Judgment, and they will be united to their resurrected bodies to receive their due and the Kingdom of God will be established in full. This also ties closely in with the Parousia... of course I cannot say that Jesus has "left us" (in the sense of "abandoned") since the Ascension, but the Second Coming at the "end of time" seems to be a radically more complete presence of Christ different from the way in which we experience Christ's presence now (i.e., through the Sacraments and prayer)... But the Parousia ("end of time") is when the Lateran Council declared that the resurrection of the body will occur so that "they may receive according to their deeds, whether good or evil." And this seems to me to be echoed faithfully in the Scriptures--which, I am somewhat hesitant to strip down to a mere symbolic meaning (because symbolic always tends to say "just pretend"). ALSO, the Catechism isn't vague about "when" the resurrection will occur-- the resurrection is at the Parousia (CCC 1001). "The Last Day", "The End Times" etc. are not non-specific times, but rather refer to a time known only to the Father in Heaven (cf. Matthew 24:36). Lastly "timing" shouldn't necessarily be an issue here because I don't think we can think "outside of time", as God is outside of time... even "simultaneous" denotes time. It's something incomprehensible to even the most creative imagination, and so again I don't think I can speculate outside of regurgitating Conciliar Documents and old Patristic texts. ... Maybe I should change my research paper topic Thanks again, any clarifications and insights you can offer would be of great assistance to my understanding. (Do you know of any books/articles/etc that talk of this outside of Bermajo?)[/quote]
Fides_et_Ratio Posted January 25, 2006 Author Posted January 25, 2006 Oy vey. So, funny story. The kid she said I should talk to (because she thought he agreed with her) is my philosophy class... so today before class started I told him I looked up the Council (Lateran IV "we believe in the resurrection of the flesh we now possess) and that the prof had e-mailed me back. Well, turns out, he and she don't agree. He said, as a previous bio major, but a theology major, he doesn't have a problem with matter (THIS matter) existing in more than one place (i.e., When we die we are outside of time AND SPACE). He doesn't agree with her "two body" view, and in fact, said, "Sister is a heretic" and claims he might change his research paper topic too. I also ran into her in the hallway today, and she still thinks it's mere theological opinion that we disagree on, and admitted she thinks "Oh no" when she sees an e-mail from me in her inbox. HOWEVER, she e-mailed back again (which is free reign for me to e-mail a reply) [quote name='prof to Fides round 3']My dear Fides, It was great to see you in the hall today. You always make me smile! I love that you put so much thought into these questions!!! I think I've said pretty much what I wanted to say, and I do really appreciate your thinking, which is very valid. I hope you agree that this is a difference in theological opinion only, not on doctrine! Even the saints had differing theological approaches and perspectives! And I surely have been changed myself by my students' arguments, because I appreciate seeing the truth when it is presented in a more cohesive and compelling way. So don't give up in the future. What you say may well change my mind rather than vice versa! But since this is a matter of theological opinion, I will keep reflecting on what you say, and see what new insights I myself can gain! Thank you so much for taking all that time to formulate the question and to reply. Oh, just a comment on your last paragraph. Notice that you say [i]"but the Second Coming at the "end of time" seems to be a radically more complete presence of Christ different from the way in which we experience Christ's presence now."[/i] See how the subject of each clause changes: "more complete presence of Christ" different from "the way in which WE experience Christ's presence now." Yes, exactly. The change is in how WE experience the Lord's presence, not that that the Lord Himself is present more completely at the Parousia! This is why it does make sense to me to speak of the Parousia as the full manifestation of the Lord rather than His "second Coming," which is charged with the possiblity of being misunderstood as His leaving and then returning. It is just a matter of the focus. About the authors which represent the position I have been talking about. Actually many today do, and the next author we will take, Sesbue, and also Phan will take the same approach. But that doesn't mean that you have to buy into it!!! Just be aware of it, and why many people, including myself, do find it a more satisfying theological explanation than the one you have spoken about. And notice the emphasis is on the consistency of the the explanation, not on the truth of the dogmatic proclamation! I send much love and prayer. Keep up the good questioning!!! [/quote] She's definitely misinterpreting my original statements, but I can clarify those in my next defense of the resurrection of the body and the parousia.
phatcatholic Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 she seems more or less finished with the conversation, so you may want to apologize in your response for badgering her (even tho ur really not badgering her) and also possibly present your thoughts as the final ones on this subject (as in, you won't say anymore after this). generally, it doesn't seem very prudent to get into lengthy or prolonged debates with a professor, especially since so much about being a student is being at the mercy of them! just my advice...........i know u don't like to give up that easy
thessalonian Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 I have to agree with phat. You have done an excellent job of presenting your case. Pray and let the holy spirit work on her.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted January 29, 2006 Author Posted January 29, 2006 Well, I think I did one better. I haven't e-mailed her back a response. But instead I changed my research paper topic to the resurrection of the body. (she actually liked this idea) She gave us two books for class that have similiar ideas regarding the resurrection (one actually published by Liturgical Press in Collegeville, MN), but neither of them have a nihil obstat or imprimatur etc., in them. However, I DO have SEVERAL other sources that make specific reference to "this" flesh, and they DO have both the nihil obstat and imprimatur in them. This shall be awesome.
thessalonian Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Collegeville. Yuck. That's where the Little Rock Scripture study came from.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted February 4, 2006 Author Posted February 4, 2006 Yeah... so now I'm the poster-girl for the "theological opinion" that this flesh resurrects "at the end of time" (she still insists it's immediate). I can't win. Scripture, the Catechism, ECFs, and Ecumenical Councils are all speaking "symbolically". She told me I need to look for the [i]meaning[/i], not merely the words. Pray. However, secondly, I am needing some help in understanding something else she's claiming. She says we cannot be in Heaven without a body (this is her main objection to my stance). She says having a body is an essential and fundamental part of our happiness, while having everyone in Heaven (i.e., for her, the "parousia" is when everyone is in Heaven) is only an accidental happiness. We cannot be (according to her) "in" Heaven without our bodies--because without our bodies it's not Heaven ("we" as a body-soul person cannot exist "in Heaven" because Heaven is fulfillment and we couldn't be fulfilled without a body). Her exact words were "all we need in Heaven is the Trinity and our body". Death is the moment that our soul is separated from our "pre-risen" body (which goes to rot in the ground), and we are united to our "risen" body "which the Trinity created for us" thus it's not reincarnation. ? Any thoughts on the "essential"/"accidental" happiness aspect of the soul/body and Heaven?
phatcatholic Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Feb 4 2006, 01:41 PM']Yeah... so now I'm the poster-girl for the "theological opinion" that this flesh resurrects "at the end of time" (she still insists it's immediate). I can't win. Scripture, the Catechism, ECFs, and Ecumenical Councils are all speaking "symbolically". She told me I need to look for the [i]meaning[/i], not merely the words.[/quote] good grief [quote] Pray.[/quote] sounds like a plan [quote]However, secondly, I am needing some help in understanding something else she's claiming. She says we cannot be in Heaven without a body (this is her main objection to my stance).[/quote] how in the world is this even remotely supported by scripture? ugh! it is very clear that we are judged immediately upon our death for either heaven or hell, and that we recieve our body [i][b]when Jesus comes again[/b][/i]. i find no support for receiving it any earlier. [quote]She says having a body is an essential and fundamental part of our happiness, while having everyone in Heaven (i.e., for her, the "parousia" is when everyone is in Heaven) is only an accidental happiness. [/quote] as i understand it, the BEATIFIC VISION is the essential and fundamental source of our happiness in heaven. it is in this vision that we have our essential beatitude. gaining our body at the end of time adds to our accidental beatitude (see headings V, VII, and VIII [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm"][b]here[/b][/url])......and there is nothing wrong w/ this. that something would add to our joy does not necessarily imply that our joy was deficient beforehand. secondly, we already know that there are degrees of beatitude in heaven, based upon our merit. so, this idea of greater joy, or something adding to our joy should not be foreign or reprehensible to us. [quote]We cannot be (according to her) "in" Heaven without our bodies--because without our bodies it's not Heaven ("we" as a body-soul person cannot exist "in Heaven" because Heaven is fulfillment and we couldn't be fulfilled without a body).[/quote] as i understand it, we are fulfilled in our sharing of the divine nature and our presence before the beatific vision, and the joy we receive from the addition of our bodies is only accidental, or incidental. this is b/c, in heaven, we are consumed by the joy that comes from being in his presence, seeing him for who he is, and being able to worship him more fully and completely. the joy that comes from the body is secondary to the joy we already recieve from this Vision. [quote]Her exact words were "all we need in Heaven is the Trinity and our body". Death is the moment that our soul is separated from our "pre-risen" body (which goes to rot in the ground), and we are united to our "risen" body "which the Trinity created for us" thus it's not reincarnation.[/quote] i don't really know what to make of that part anyway, i hope that helps. admittedly, my thoughts on this are still preliminary. i was more or less thinking out loud, so it could be that i have said something inaccurate. it doesn't seem right to think of heaven as "incomplete" or "imperfect" as long as the souls in heaven are separated from their bodies, so i tend to think of it instead in terms of the degrees of joy that we know exist in heaven and that, while it is necessary for the soul to be reunited w/ the body (we are, afterall, body-soul creatures) we are "completed" by our presence before the Vision and so this addition is accidental, or secondary, or extraneous. pax christi, phatcatholic
Fides_et_Ratio Posted February 4, 2006 Author Posted February 4, 2006 No, phatcatholic, your thoughts help a great deal, because they hit all the high points I brought up again today (I'm e-mailing a kid from class, he's a solid Catholic, but I don't think he realizes her error, so he asked me to e-mail him my sources for my paper--pray for him too!) I'm just feeling overwhelmed since this isn't my high point (it's not something I usually have to defend), so I'm unprepared and at a loss for words more often than not. When I insisted upon our being body-soul persons in class, that THIS body is who I am, not merely an attachment to my person, she claimed "exactly!" and that's why we MUST have bodies in Heaven to be "fully" there. I don't agree with that conclusion, but I couldn't articulate a faithful response quick enough.
phatcatholic Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 i don't blame you............its not the usual heresy you see every day. maybe these entries will help? Heaven [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/156"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/156[/url] Judgment and the Second Coming [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/160"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/160[/url] Resurrection of the Body [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/161"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/161[/url] if you don't find what you need to defend your understanding, let me know and i'll see what else i can find pax christi, phatcatholic ps: i would be interested to see what anyone else has to say about this supposed deficiency in heaven as long as souls are w/o their body. my initial response is to reject such a statement (how could heaven be imperfect?).......but then one has to at the same time support the body-soul nature of the human being and the fact that the two are "meant" to be united with each other.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted February 5, 2006 Author Posted February 5, 2006 Well, even St. Thomas in the Summa will argue that a soul is incomplete without its body... when I asked why it was a problem for the soul to be incomplete when Heaven would, in a sense, be incomplete until the parousia (no matter how one chooses to define parousia) and that was when she said that the body was essential to our happiness in heaven, while the "full manifestation" was only accidental. I know it doesn't have support, but it doesn't jive with my want to claim the body-soul relationship as evidence for why THIS flesh resurrects... so I dunno. I'll have to keep mulling it over. EDIT: it's also hard because she wants to reject anything "pre-Vatican II" as being "understood in a different way"... she keeps using limbo as an example, and also purgatory... and refuses to see that it's entirely different from saying "this" flesh and then changing our minds. I have Ott's book, [u]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [/u]and pointed out that he says the resurretion of THIS flesh is a matter "de fide", but she won't let it fly because it was published in 1960--before V2. ...so dumb!
journeyman Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Fides - you should be honored to be the poster child of orthodoxy I had not thought about this (at all - not once) before seeing this thread . . . and hardly at all since seeing it. Not to be too cavalier, but this comes close to a "do I care" topic - realizing that this is what this course is about, there must be more to this than I was giving it credit for My initial thoughts are that whatever body I'm given will be fine with me. If I were a thalidomide baby - or paralyzed because of an accident, it would be nice to have the free use of arms, legs and other appendages. For that to happen, my "resurrected" body would have to be "fixed" . . . and would that happen if it was the damaged body that led me to accept God's will; if the damage actually was the proximate cause of my growth in fath? If my worship and praise in the damaged body was sufficient here on earth, it might also be sufficient in Heaven. I think Fides may have discussed this earlier in the thread - I think I'll go back and re-read the whole thing before I make too big a fool of myself. from re-reading the thread - Trinity is/are . . . how did that play out the people are; the crowd is . . . . the three in one are; the Trinity is . . . (my 2 cents is this is grammar) our bodies - didn't Paul (or one of the other letter writers) address this issue - because the Second Coming didn't come as quickly as people expected - and the faithful were worried about whether or not their parents would also rise? if our bodies were merely lost (as in a sailor lost at sea), the original body can rise, just as a buried body could. But what about the martyrs whose bodies were utterly destroyed? There is no body left to rise - so there would need to be a "second" body - a supernatural "clone" if you will, for the martyr to be reunited with their body (or a reconstituted body from the ashes?) Not that I want to point to Revelation as anything other than symbolic . . . . but isn't there a section there about the souls under the altar crying for revenge? If they want revenge because they are still disembodied souls, that makes sense, and helps explain why they are asking for revenge when everyone else in Heaven is praising God . . . Revelation 6:9 . . . but then they were given white robes . . . and what are you going to do with a robe if you don't have a body? Second Coming - "radically more complete presence of Christ different from the way in which we experience Christ's presence now" - as one who appears to be deaf to the whispers of the Holy Spirit, I envision the Second Coming as a time when everyone - Christian, fallen away, non--Christian - will see Jesus, it may not be floating down on a cloud, it may not be a "sheep" line and a "goat" line, but eveyone will know they are being judged - THAT is a radically more complete presence In Heaven - the parousia - how does that intersect with the concept of Heaven on Earth - the new Jerusalem on top of (hovering over) the present location? Let's put to the side "alternate space/time continuum" which plays well in science fiction, but may not have the same acceptance in theology - Since all things are possible for God - since He knew Mary would be, and remain through her life, free from worldly sin, he arranged for her to be born without original sin - it is not outside the bounds of logic to say that time means nothing (or maybe I should say our linear conception of time is no barrier) to God - so I guess it is possible that our bodies will rise immediately to Heaven and be complete (as the prof says is necessary) and that we (in our risen bodies) will have no conception of the passage of time until the end times - but that seems to defeat the purpose of the multitudes praising God in Heaven - or maybe we just won't notice the passage of time as we worship Can you tell that I know I don't know
Fides_et_Ratio Posted February 6, 2006 Author Posted February 6, 2006 NOTE: the other Catholic kid in my class, after reading my e-mail, has changed his mind and "joined my side"... he mentioned that he wants to read up more on it and said perhaps later we (i.e., me, him, and the other boy from my class) can confront the prof as it seems to him as well that she's in a bit of heresy. (Yay! I ain't alone!.. lol, not that I ever really was... all the Saints behind me and all..) journeyman, you bring up some good points. I still have some trouble understanding (as this isn't my strong point in understanding Church dogma/doctrine), but I'll give some thoughts a whirl... regarding "damaged" bodies... these imperfections will be perfected in Heaven, I think. If a person lacks sight, or a limb, it will be restored-- I'm not objecting that the flesh can be "added" to (for indeed, it will have to be).. but it is precisely THIS flesh which will be transfigured/transformed.. THIS flesh will become a new creation, I will not "receive" a wholly separate and distinct body for this would reject in a sense, the goodness of matter. about cremation/totally "destroyed" bodies... something still remains of it. And I don't think it would be difficult for God to unite even the smallest of particles needed to reunite a soul with its flesh. about the robes in Revelation.. I guess I don't have much to say in that respect. It's a mystery... and yes, a cop-out answer, but other than what has been revealed, I know nothing of the things of Heaven. regarding the last point-- being outside of time-- I tried to say that perhaps our bodies could be risen since they are outside of time, but the prof wouldn't accept it because she says it's a contradiction. a thing cannot both be and not be (i.e., a body cannot be both limited and unlimited)-- though this still implies "time" because she wanted to say "simlutaneously". lol. I don't know. I don't. And I don't know how much my paper can cover, but I'm darn well going to try. lol. Grazie for all the help/thoughts everyone.
thessalonian Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) "confront the prof as it seems to him as well that she's in a bit of heresy" I think you've already done a sufficient job of this. My suggestion is that you need to go higher up now. To the dean or president of the college or perhaps the bishop. Currently Catholic theological teachers are required to be orthodox. I would hope the bishop would like to know. At any rate you have educated another and kept them from error. That in itself makes your efforts worthwhile. Kudos. Edited February 6, 2006 by thessalonian
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 The matter is not what is constant about the body. Matter is in perpetual flux, it is the form that is constant. If the matter was the sum of the body then we have a different body every nanosecond or so.. considering our subatomic particles are pretty busy at every moment, and then considering how cells operate. And I would say that the deeper one looks to try and grasp exactly that of which matter is constituted, the more the bare definition of matter becomes quite mysterious and even quasi-mystical. And yet matter is stable and we can speak of our body as a kind of unity. Either way, I don't think God needs to round up the same atoms that we have at this moment and reconstruct our body in this way. God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones. Perhaps if we actually understood essentially what matter is, we could begin to understand how God might effect the great mystery of the resurrection. To the best of my knowledge our understanding of matter only goes so far. Regardless of this the profession of the Catholic Faith is that our bodies will be raised on the last day. The same body that I had as an infant, which is the very body that I now have. The body is not extrinsic to the person and an authentically Catholic anthropology does not imagine a disembodied person who can change bodies like one might change pants.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted February 13, 2006 Author Posted February 13, 2006 Thanks, L_D, that's helpful. I somewhat included that (in similar wording) in my paper (due this Saturday... oy vey)--that saying "this flesh" does not mean "this flesh as it is constituted at this very second in time with all these same cells... our bodies grow and loose cells constantly yet we don't say that we have a different body every day when we wake in the morning" BUT there is still a kind of continuity of the body that makes it me/mine. I'm just having trouble finding sources regarding this to put in my paper explained well enough.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now