Accidents after resurrection

[thinkandmull]

Here’s an intriguing subject:

Does Jesus’s resurrected body have a distinction between accidents and substance, or is it all one? To clarify a little: is the substance of bread changed into merely the substance of Jesus’s body, or the accidents as well; or is there no distinction between accidents and substance any more after resurrection?

 

[Vico]

Here’s an intriguing subject:

Does Jesus’s resurrected body have a distinction between accidents and substance, or is it all one? To clarify a little: is the substance of bread changed into merely the substance of Jesus’s body, or the accidents as well; or is there no distinction between accidents and substance any more after resurrection?

The Son of God has a divine nature, and a human nature consisting of the immaterial soul (substance and accidents) and the glorified body (with substance and accidents). The human totality is the soul and body whereas the whole Jesus Christ is the divine and human totality.

The Eucharist is the whole Christ as described above.

 

[thinkandmull]

Since the resurrected body is a spiritual body (perhaps not palpable in the sense that touching the skin it pushes back after contact, that palpable effect), it seems to me possible perhaps that there is no distinction between substance and accidents like there is here on earth. Maybe I’m mistaken

 

[Gorgias]

Since the resurrected body is a spiritual body

No. The glorified body is a true body. In the eschaton, our nature will not change, but it will be perfected. We will continue to be a unity of body and soul.

However, there’s the question of whether there will continue to be the Eucharist (as we know it) in heaven. What purpose would it serve, since we will have become “perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect” and will be in union with God – and therefore, with Christ?

There will, of course, be the ‘supper of the Lamb’… but does that imply that there will be the Eucharist in the way that we experience it now?

 

[GEddie]

We will definitely have live human skin; I don’t know where the idea came from that we wouldn’t

Our LORD had His friends touch His hands and feet; their hands did not go through him.

Then again, HIS ability to separate accidents from substance is likely an effect of His divinity, and not a property of spiritual bodies, per se. We will have no need to “transubstantiate” our bodies, and so probably won’t be able to.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vico]

Since the resurrected body is a spiritual body (perhaps not palpable in the sense that touching the skin it pushes back after contact, that palpable effect), it seems to me possible perhaps that there is no distinction between substance and accidents like there is here on earth. Maybe I’m mistaken

• The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth. (De fide.)

From the Council of Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.”

The human body has vegetative and sensitive functions. Ludwig Ott adds:
The integrity of the body after its resurrection also demands the organs of vegetative and sensitive life, including the differences between the sexes (as against the view of Origen; D[enzinger] 207). However, the vegetative functions will no longer take place. Mt. 22, 30: “They shall be as the angels of God in Heaven.”

 

[thinkandmull]

But after the resurrection bodies can walk through walls, so they are not just as our flesh and bones are now. As for gender, there needs to be a distinction between male and female as the Church has said, but I don’t think genitals are in heaven

 

[Vico]

But after the resurrection bodies can walk through walls, so they are not just as our flesh and bones are now. As for gender, there needs to be a distinction between male and female as the Church has said, but I don’t think genitals are in heaven

At least St. Thomas Aquinas held that the sensitive organs of the sexes will be present and citing D207 condemnation of Origin’s teaching, from Pope Vigilius (537) 540-555: Can. 5. If anyone says or maintains that in resurrection the bodies of men are raised up from sleep spherical, and does not agree that we are raised up from sleep upright, let him be anathema.

The act of intellection requires sensation, and the acts of sensation require bodily organs.

You are thinking of the second dogma, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 491 has:

a) The bodies of the just will be remodelled and transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)
…

β) Subtility (subtilitas), that is, a spiritualized nature, which, however, is not to be conceived as a transformation of the body into a spiritual essence or as a refinement of the matter into an ethereal body (cf. Luke 24,39). The archetype of the spiritualized body is the risen body of Christ, which emerged from the sealed tomb and penetrated closed doors (John 20, 19. 26). The intrinsic reason of the spiritualization of the body lies in the complete dominion of the body by the transfigured soul in so far as it is the essential form of the body. Suppl. 83, I.

γ) Agility (agilitas), that is, the capability of the body to obey the soul with the greatest ease and speed of movement. It forms a contrast to the heaviness of the earthly body, which is conditioned by the Law of Gravity. This agility was manifested by the risen Body of Christ, which was suddenly present in the midst of His Apostles, and which disappeared just as quickly John 20, 19. 26 ; Luke 24, 31). The intrinsic reason of agility lies in the perfect dominion over the body of the transfigured soul, to the extent that it moves the body. Suppl. 84, I.

 

[thinkandmull]

Gregory the Great had a disagreement with those in Constantinople as to whether the resurrected body is ethereal. It could be an open question. This is not to say it is a “ghost”, because a ghost is just an apparition. I don’t see any purpose to having anal and genital parts. Augustine said that we will enjoy the beauty of the other sex’s body in heaven, but I think this is truly impossible while having the beatific vision and that Augustine said this because of his experience of “the fleeting experience of beauty in these lowest things” (Confessions)

 

[GEddie]

Gregory the Great had a disagreement with those in Constantinople as to whether the resurrected body is ethereal. It could be an open question. This is not to say it is a “ghost”, because a ghost is just an apparition. I don’t see any purpose to having anal and genital parts. Augustine said that we will enjoy the beauty of the other sex’s body in heaven, but I think this is truly impossible while having the beatific vision and that Augustine said this because of his experience of “the fleeting experience of beauty in these lowest things” (Confessions)

Methinks an “ethereal human body” is a contradiction in terms. If that is wrong, corrections are welcome.

The human body just wouldn’t be **bodily **unless solid.

Ethereal hands wouldn’t be handy. Ethereal legs would have no leverage or traction. An ethereal nose could draw no breath or smells. Ethereal eyes would absorb no light. Nor would our incredibly sensuous skin perform its function if not stretched over a solid body. Etc.

I don’t think the solidity of the everlasting-life human body is in any way an open question.

As to admiring the beauty of the body: certainly we’d see "everybody" and admire God’s workmanship in them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thinkandmull]

Methinks an “ethereal human body” is a contradiction in terms. If that is wrong, corrections are welcome.

The human body just wouldn’t be **bodily **unless solid.

Ethereal hands wouldn’t be handy. Ethereal legs would have no leverage or traction. An ethereal nose could draw no breath or smells. Ethereal eyes would absorb no light. Nor would our incredibly sensuous skin perform its function if not stretched over a solid body. Etc.

I don’t think the solidity of the everlasting-life human body is in any way an open question.

As to admiring the beauty of the body: certainly we’d see "everybody" and admire God’s workmanship in them.

ICXC NIKA

Then how do you interpret “Subtility”

 

[thinkandmull]

The east has a whole philosophy on what the astral body is which could be helpful in understanding this. Anyway, I believe Theology of the Body theorists have brought many misconceptions, drawn from American culture, into theological thinking.

 

[thinkandmull]

One example is that God is “genderless”. Now this is true if, as the Church teaches, He has no bodily gender. But people think that is the end of the story, when in reality we can still ask the question “does God have a male presence, a female presence, or neither?”

 

[GEddie]

The east has a whole philosophy on what the astral body is which could be helpful in understanding this. Anyway, I believe Theology of the Body theorists have brought many misconceptions, drawn from American culture, into theological thinking.

ISTM that if you try to interpret Christian doctrine (bodily resurrection) by Eastern religion, you end up with a quagmire, not a body.

The “astral body” has no counterpart in Christian eschatology. It is the supposed carrier of the human mind in out-of-body experiences, which themselves are foreign to the Church, as least when pursued at will. We are not to go travelling without our skin, at least while alive.

I don’t know why you think TOB derives from “American culture.” It was created by the Catholic Church, which if anything is Eurocentric, not American.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church accepts what is true philosophically in any culture or religion. TOB is promoted with the idea that shame in sex is all bad

 

[GEddie]

The Church accepts what is true philosophically in any culture or religion. TOB is promoted with the idea that shame in sex is all bad

I’m not sure what connects shame in sex (a holdover from Puritan times) to Resurrectional human bodies or the solidity thereof. No-one is arguing that the spiritual bodies engage in sexual behavior.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m not sure what connects shame in sex (a holdover from Puritan times) to Resurrectional human bodies or the solidity thereof. No-one is arguing that the spiritual bodies engage in sexual behavior.

ICXC NIKA

We were talking about bodies being different in heaven and whether we will enjoy nakedness in heaven, which is what TOB is really all about. Puritans probably had better sex than body fixated people in the digital age anyway, but this is not really about Puritanism. Shame is a healthy part of an understanding between a man and a woman and part of the dare of having sex. It is an American idea, taken up by people like Christopher West, that fascination with nudism apart from shame is what Genesis was speaking about after the Fall. BTW though, Peter Kreeft, famous Catholic scholar, has actually proposed that there could be sex in heaven, so it’s not true that there is “No-one” saying this

 

[GEddie]

We were talking about bodies being different in heaven and whether we will enjoy nakedness in heaven, which is what TOB is really all about. Puritans probably had better sex than body fixated people in the digital age anyway, but this is not really about Puritanism. Shame is a healthy part of an understanding between a man and a woman and part of the dare of having sex. It is an American idea, taken up by people like Christopher West, that fascination with nudism apart from shame is what Genesis was speaking about after the Fall. BTW though, Peter Kreeft, famous Catholic scholar, has actually proposed that there could be sex in heaven, so it’s not true that there is “No-one” saying this

I meant no-one on the thread.

Fwiw, I hope we will be Nekkid in our Resurrectional bodies, or rather that our form and skin will be such that the term won’t be needed (nor clothes). Shame is not needed where there is no sin.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thinkandmull]

I disagree with your last sentence. I think that if Adam and Eve did have sex in the Garden it would have been the shame of arousal that would have pushed them to orgasm. Shame after the fall is a different complicated thing. TOB takes a simplistic look at these matters of ancient times

 

[Vico]

Gregory the Great had a disagreement with those in Constantinople as to whether the resurrected body is ethereal. It could be an open question. This is not to say it is a “ghost”, because a ghost is just an apparition. I don’t see any purpose to having anal and genital parts. Augustine said that we will enjoy the beauty of the other sex’s body in heaven, but I think this is truly impossible while having the beatific vision and that Augustine said this because of his experience of “the fleeting experience of beauty in these lowest things” (Confessions)

Gregory the Great rejected subtle and ethereal and accepted flesh: “subtle by efficacy of spiritual power, but palpable by the reality of its nature”.

The view of Eutychius (Patriarch of Constantinople from 552 to 565) was considered heretical. Pope Gregory accepted Luke 24:39. “See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.”

Our bodies are glorified after the manner of Jesus Christ, per the council.