M
mark_a
Guest
I have heard two priests say that we (may) become Angels if we make it to heaven.
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here?
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
I think you’re missing a few theologically well trained priests. We are humans, and that’s all we’ll ever be. If God were to make us angels, He would be making us inhuman.
God Bless,
RyanL
God Bless,
RyanL
L
LilyM
Guest
Not badly theologically trained - just taking the following phrase slightly too literally:
‘at the resurrection there will be neither marrying nor giving in marriage, but they will be like the angels’ (this is Christ’s response to the question about the woman who married each of seven brothers one after the other)
‘at the resurrection there will be neither marrying nor giving in marriage, but they will be like the angels’ (this is Christ’s response to the question about the woman who married each of seven brothers one after the other)
J
JPII_TOB
Guest
The late great Pope John Paul II in his “Theology of the Body” started with that scripture passage to discuss “eschatological man” or our destiny after the resurrection. I will address the passage in a minute. First of all as Catholics we believe in the resurrection of the body as we state in the creed, so I am not sure how a priest could miss that. We are created both body and spirit, our body expresses our spirit. The human soul needs the body to express itself - not only on earth but in heaven as well.
Here is a great quote from Peter Kreeft from “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven” - “A soul without a body is exactly the opposite of what Plato thought it is. It is not free but bound. It is in an extreme form of paralysis. That is why the resurrection of the body is … not a dispensible extra. When death separates the two we have a freak, a monster, an obscenity. That is why we are terrified of ghosts and corpes, though both are harmless: they are the obscenely separated aspects of what belongs together as one. That is why Jesus wept at Lazurus’ grave: not merely for His bereavement but for this cosmic obscenity.”
What Christ is speaking about in the Scripture passage reaffirms the fact that marriage and the “one flesh” union of husband and wife is but a wonderful sign to point us to God. Marriage lived rightly is meant to express in a humanly action the mystery of God. Which the CCC 221 states is “God has revealed his innermost secret: God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.”
Much more was said in the Theology of the Body. The priests should actually know better than that. This is Catholic doctrine. God Bless.
Here is a great quote from Peter Kreeft from “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven” - “A soul without a body is exactly the opposite of what Plato thought it is. It is not free but bound. It is in an extreme form of paralysis. That is why the resurrection of the body is … not a dispensible extra. When death separates the two we have a freak, a monster, an obscenity. That is why we are terrified of ghosts and corpes, though both are harmless: they are the obscenely separated aspects of what belongs together as one. That is why Jesus wept at Lazurus’ grave: not merely for His bereavement but for this cosmic obscenity.”
What Christ is speaking about in the Scripture passage reaffirms the fact that marriage and the “one flesh” union of husband and wife is but a wonderful sign to point us to God. Marriage lived rightly is meant to express in a humanly action the mystery of God. Which the CCC 221 states is “God has revealed his innermost secret: God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.”
Much more was said in the Theology of the Body. The priests should actually know better than that. This is Catholic doctrine. God Bless.
M
mark_a
Guest
Thanks folks.
H
Hastrman
Guest
I think the origin of this idea might be, certainly in some circles at least, that in popular Italian Catholicism the line between patron saints and guardian angels is extremely fuzzy. Frank Capra, for instance, got them confused in “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
I think that might explain at least some of the confusion, mightn’t it?
I think that might explain at least some of the confusion, mightn’t it?
M
mark_a
Guest
Gee, I never took note. Thanks for the reply.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
St. Therese of Lisieux is bound? She is in an extreme form of paralysis? I’m no theologian, but it seems to be that’s pulling it a bit long. Souls in heaven are joined with the infinite God. How could that possibly be an “extreme form of paralysis”. I do not dispute that humans are, by nature, body and soul, or that the resurrection of the body is a reasonable belief for that reason. But seems to me Mr. Kreeft went over the high side with that one.
Regarding angels. Each angel, we are taught, is a unique species, unlike humans who are all of one species. If we became angels, we would have to become something utterly different from what we are, and we would all have to become utterly different from one another. I think the priests were surely speaking in a loose, metaphoric sense.
E
EBSSTF4
Guest
CCC
[SIGN]1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted. [/SIGN]
You may never be an Angel, but you can be a Saint.
[SIGN]1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted. [/SIGN]
You may never be an Angel, but you can be a Saint.
- Status