Eternity and time

  • Thread starter Thread starter pachomius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pachomius

Guest
Greetings to all,

I am trying to find definitive Church teachings on the distinction between time and eternity - something from the early Church fathers or a Council document would be preferable.

I am trying to find out what the Church’s understanding of it’s place in time is. God is eternal but has acted in time. The Church is in time, but is in some way in touch with God in his eternal aspects.

Anything along those lines would be helpful - any ideas?
 
Greetings to all,

I am trying to find definitive Church teachings on the distinction between time and eternity - something from the early Church fathers or a Council document would be preferable.

I am trying to find out what the Church’s understanding of it’s place in time is. God is eternal but has acted in time. The Church is in time, but is in some way in touch with God in his eternal aspects.

Anything along those lines would be helpful - any ideas?
That would be interesting, since ‘eternity’ is basically time that never ends. I don’t know what the word for the timeless state that spiritual beings inhabit is called, since ‘eternity’ implies time.

If the word eternity is used for that state, then it has a dual meaning…
 
Greetings to all,

I am trying to find definitive Church teachings on the distinction between time and eternity - something from the early Church fathers or a Council document would be preferable.

I am trying to find out what the Church’s understanding of it’s place in time is. God is eternal but has acted in time. The Church is in time, but is in some way in touch with God in his eternal aspects.

Anything along those lines would be helpful - any ideas?
You may have a doctoral thesis there. I have never encountered a teaching that dealt with the two distinctions in the manner you desire, to juxtapose them for comparison. I have always found great comfort in the words “…in the fullness of time…” used to describe the advent of Jesus. I have easily extrapolated those words and made them my own during meditations in front of the Blessed Sacrament in attempting to come to terms with issues within my life. Time is part and parcel to eternity, cannot be separated from it, as each second cannot be recovered as it has passed into eternity.
I suggest you embrace the “…fullness of time…” as being the definition for the Church’s place in time, and rest in knowing time and eternity are in the control of our Creator.
 
Greetings to all,

I am trying to find definitive Church teachings on the distinction between time and eternity - something from the early Church fathers or a Council document would be preferable.

I am trying to find out what the Church’s understanding of it’s place in time is. God is eternal but has acted in time. The Church is in time, but is in some way in touch with God in his eternal aspects.

Anything along those lines would be helpful - any ideas?
Time is the “measure of change” (as Aristotle would put it, I believe).

Here is a quote by someone in a previous post regarding the definition of eternity (and the Beatific Vision):
St. Thomas addresses this in the Summa, but “eternity” is spoken of in two different ways. On the other hand it can mean “outside of time” and this is the more “proper” meaning of eternity, but according to this definition, only God is eternal.

Eternity can also refer to an infinite amount of time, and it is in this sense that we experience eternity (because our souls are immortal).

Heaven is a physical place indeed, but also refers simply to the possession of the Beatific Vision (which can exist outside of the physical place of Heaven as in the case of Christ). Our experience of Heaven would seem to be primarily a matter of an infinite sucession of time, although since we participate in the divine nature in Heaven, there would seem to be a way that we participate also in God’s eternity (being outside of time), but this participation is obviously limited.
St. Thomas talks about eternity in the First Part of the Summa, Question 10:

newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm

I know this is neither a Church Father nor a Church Council, but that’s the best I can do.
 
Well, not a council, but how about “The Consolation of Philosophy”? I know this has been addressed in other theological works by many as well, but I am also inclined to say that it is not in any one work, but spread out and dealt with in many. It seems to me that Augustine has dealt with the topic, and THomas, among others.
 
I guess I am officially famous now… I have been quoted by another poster!

Time and eternity for some reason is I topic I love because on the one hand it seems very clear, and on the other hand, everyone has such strange views about how they can interact.

Areopagite’s (and hence Aristotle’s) definition of change is the best.

pachomius, perhaps if you made the question about the Church’s place in time a little more specific, you could get some more pointed responses.
 
There is a popular notion among religionists, one of three rather tragic ones, that eternity is simply time going on forever. The proper term for that might be “infinite duration.” Eternity, as such, has no component of duration. If there is change, then we are speaking of time. If we are speaking of absolutely no change and yet Being, then we are speaking about eternity.

The Church, being material and changing is therefore temporal. It traffics in thoughts and beliefs about God and eternity, but has not directly to do with the experience of them, nor does it lead to such experience in other than a rather veiled way. In fact, it discourages direct inquiry into the Nature of Being, stressing faith, morals, dogma, and tradition allegedly leading to a delayed reward instead. This is why it is categorized as an ascending, exoteric religion, and thought by many, in fact, to be primarily materialistic for these and other reasons.

This means, Pachomius, that whatever docu-mentation you discover within the Church on the subject, it might advance both your thesis and understanding to compare the Church with, say, a descending/esoteric philosophy, so at least you have a working knowledge and intellectual, if not practical knowledge, of the difference and whatever other shades of categoric gradation there might be pertinent to your question.
 
There is a popular notion among religionists, one of three rather tragic ones, that eternity is simply time going on forever. The proper term for that might be “infinite duration.” Eternity, as such, has no component of duration. If there is change, then we are speaking of time. If we are speaking of absolutely no change and yet Being, then we are speaking about eternity.

The Church, being material and changing is therefore temporal. It traffics in thoughts and beliefs about God and eternity, but has not directly to do with the experience of them, nor does it lead to such experience in other than a rather veiled way. In fact, it discourages direct inquiry into the Nature of Being, stressing faith, morals, dogma, and tradition allegedly leading to a delayed reward instead. This is why it is categorized as an ascending, exoteric religion, and thought by many, in fact, to be primarily materialistic for these and other reasons.

This means, Pachomius, that whatever docu-mentation you discover within the Church on the subject, it might advance both your thesis and understanding to compare the Church with, say, a descending/esoteric philosophy, so at least you have a working knowledge and intellectual, if not practical knowledge, of the difference and whatever other shades of categoric gradation there might be pertinent to your question.
Detales:

(See stylized text above) I know we never got to finish several conversations on the subject of Being and the Catholic Church, in our past sessions, but, before you make such iron-clad pronouncements, it would pay to have the facts. Among a number of Catholic writers and philosophers who have never had reason to discourage inquiry into the Nature of Being, one of the best and most famous books, was written by two Priests. It is named, Being and God. This book was written by Fr’s. Klubertanz and Holloway. The book has been around since 1963, the good Fathers, a tad longer.

jd
 
Thanks, jd. I’m simply speaking of my own experience when I spent a great deal of time and energy attempting ot get some form of reasonable context within the Church’s paramaters relative to an extreme life altering perception. None of any real use was forthcoming from any of the clerics or literature that I could at that time make use of, and consequently and fortunately I discovered something that has these past nearly forty years served me increasing well in this regard. It has clarified for me the origins of the very veiled, confusing, and misleading teachings of the Church. But I am glad that such a book as you mention exists, and I would like to read it to see if we agree on terms and ideas. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
 
Wow! I’ve been out all day and just now got the chance to sign on and see if there had been any replies to my post … you folks are awesome! These are just the sort of pointers I needed!

Julian0404 - not a doctoral thesis, just an undergraduate senior thesis, but yes I am trying to write a paper. And I must say I agree with you on a personal level. I often find myself regretting mistakes I’ve made, time misspent, and found myself taking comfort in the hope that all things will work out in God’s time, not mine. Of course, in the meanwhile, I’ve got to write this paper …

Areopagite - Saint Thomas may not be an early Church Father or a Church Council, but he is the Angelic Doctor and that’s good enough for me. I looked at the link you provided and I think that’s just the sort of source I can use, so thank you for that.

Katholish -
“I guess I am officially famous now… I have been quoted by another poster!” -Katholish
I guess that makes you doubly famous now! You’ve been quoted twice!
Seriously, though, I’m surprised I hadn’t found your original post the first time around - I did do a search on “eternal” and “eternity” before posting my question - guess I just missed it.
But you’re post hit on my question almost exactly -
First of all, yes, the distinction between “eternal” and “eternity”. Eternal is outside of time, and only God is that. But at the same time, He acts in time. The fullness of revelation took place in the Incarnation, something that happened in time 2,000 years ago.
Furthermore, the Church continues to exist in time. And the Church is the Body of Christ, right?
Maybe we could say that the Church will last forever - for “eternity” - and therefore it shares in the eternal attribute of God?
Or something along those lines … sorry, not a philosopher, so I may be phrasing things badly.

Detales - interesting points, thanks. But first of all, I think the distinction between eternal and eternity works here - “no change and yet Being” would be the eternal; “infinite duration” would be eternity.
And I also think you’re missing out on half of what the Church teaches. Certainly, the Church has its theological approach to God - Thomas Aquinas is the best example of this. But the Church also has its mystical half, best expressed in the Eucharist itself, but also not too shabbily expressed by St. Thomas when, at the end of his life, he said “All that I have written is but straw.”
 
Thanks, Pachomius, (interesting name!)

It fascinates me that you chose the exact quote from Aquinas that I often use to indicate that there is more beyond the intellection and reasoning that seems to take up so much of exchanges about religion. If memory serves, he even wanted to burn his works. I am glad he didn’t, on several counts. But it surprises me that people who know that he went beyond his work tend often to get bogged down in it rather than being more curious,it seems to me, about what “got him over,” so to speak.

I wish I could spirit you a copy of Harry Benjamin’s Basic Self Knowledge. That work has an excellent treatment of the subject at hand. Unfortunately, my copy is in other hands, lol! I have yet to replace it, or I would send you some material from that. In any case, if you are curious, the first chapter of that book is available to read on Amazon.

Best to you in your explorations.

Bindar Dundat, FZPC
 
Pachomius,
First of all, yes, the distinction between “eternal” and “eternity”. Eternal is outside of time, and only God is that. But at the same time, He acts in time. The fullness of revelation took place in the Incarnation, something that happened in time 2,000 years ago.
Furthermore, the Church continues to exist in time. And the Church is the Body of Christ, right?
Maybe we could say that the Church will last forever - for “eternity” - and therefore it shares in the eternal attribute of God?
Or something along those lines … sorry, not a philosopher, so I may be phrasing things badly.
I wouldn’t make the disctinction between the terms “eternal” and “eternity”. Both terms could refer to either reality. In this case, the very same word is being used in two different ways.

Human beings (at least souls) are by nature eternal in the sense of infinte succession, and hence even though the Church is a supernatural society, you could argue that it has a kind of natural eternity. However, I would also argue that there is a certain sense in which the Church (and those enjoying the beatific vision which will one day be the entire Church) can participates in God’s eternity and hence participates in some sense in being outside of time. As I mentioned, clearly this participation is limited, but I would never want to deny it altogether. We also need to keep in mind that there is a sense in which God actually came into time in the Incarnation. In taking on flesh, God took upon Himself a temporal existence. This doesn’t mean that He “left” eternity would would be a contradiction, but He assumed a second nature. This fact of God entering time (and not simply actings in it) has profound implications for the nature of the Church, which as you pointed out, is the Mystical Body of Christ and intimately united with Him.
 
Pachomius,

I wouldn’t make the distinction between the terms “eternal” and “eternity”. Both terms could refer to either reality. In this case, the very same word is being used in two different ways.

Human beings (at least souls) are by nature eternal in the sense of infinite succession, and hence even though the Church is a supernatural society, you could argue that it has a kind of natural eternity. However, I would also argue that there is a certain sense in which the Church (and those enjoying the beatific vision which will one day be the entire Church) can participates in God’s eternity and hence participates in some sense in being outside of time. As I mentioned, clearly this participation is limited, but I would never want to deny it altogether. We also need to keep in mind that there is a sense in which God actually came into time in the Incarnation. In taking on flesh, God took upon Himself a temporal existence. This doesn’t mean that He “left” eternity would would be a contradiction, but He assumed a second nature. This fact of God entering time (and not simply actings in it) has profound implications for the nature of the Church, which as you pointed out, is the Mystical Body of Christ and intimately united with Him.
Katholish has done a great job in delineating how eternality is held by the Church. His discourse brings to mind the two different “infinities” extant. On the one hand, there is what is termed “actual” infinity. It’s only representation is God. It has no beginning, no middle and no end. It is outside of time. It engulfs all of time and beyond. It engulfs all of matter and all of motion, and, like time, is beyond all matter and motion. It is in this sense that God is “eternal.”

On the other hand, there is what is termed “potential” infinity. This is that which has some or many of the properties of an actual infinity, but has not reached actuality yet. In other words, it is still proceeding towards infinity. As long as it continues in the direction of actualizing, it continues to be. It will never stop; it just continues and continues, and unlike the pink bunny, it will continue to continue. Its nature is to forever and ever be in potential to be an actual infinity, but we call it by the same word, “infinity”. It is in this sense that we are eternal.

If at any point a potential infinity should stop, it will only be, at that point, finite. It has part of the characteristics of the infinity that belongs only to God as long as it continues in motion, to expand, to add matter, to add souls, and to add time. However, infinity cannot be acquired; if it is not possessed for all eternity it can never be possessed. As the Church teaches (in The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Ch. III, The One God, By the Rev. A. L. Reys, Vol. I, pg. 89, printed 1962) “That which is infinite in any respect is necessarily infinite in all respects, for infinite cannot be limited to this or that quality, but by definition includes all in all. It follows that whatever is finite in any respect is by that fact alone known to be finite in every respect.”

So, as was said by others, the duration of a being is its continued existence. But, when duration consists of a series of different states succeeding each other, this is what we call temporal. Thus, these successive states can be measured by clocks and our universal concepts of time. Duration which is not a composition of successive states but is one continuous state with no beginning or end is called eternal. The ability to be able to compare stages or states with each other is successive duration and is subject to time and, thus, not eternal.

jd
 
a certain sense in which the Church (and those enjoying the beatific vision which will one day be the entire Church) can participates in God’s eternity and hence participates in some sense in being outside of time. As I mentioned, clearly this participation is limited, but I would never want to deny it altogether. We also need to keep in mind that there is a sense in which God actually came into time in the Incarnation. In taking on flesh, God took upon Himself a temporal existence. This doesn’t mean that He “left” eternity would would be a contradiction, but He assumed a second nature. This fact of God entering time (and not simply actings in it) has profound implications for the nature of the Church, which as you pointed out, is the Mystical Body of Christ and intimately united with Him.
Thank you, Katholish. I think we are thinking along the same lines, but you are helping me to spell it out more clearly.

Our souls are eternal in the sense that they can continue forever. They are not eternal in the sense that they were created and thus have a beginning. Only God is eternal in the sense of having both no beginning and no end.

However, as members of the Church we make up the Mystical Body of Christ. And in as much as we share in - not sure what the theologically correct way to say this is - in as much as we share in his divinity, in his person? - in as much as a toe shares in the “bodyhood” of the whole body without actually being the same as the whole body - we then come to share in the eternal nature of God.

Sort of the reverse of the fact that when God became man in the Incarnation - when he actually entered into time - this did not change the fact that he is eternal.
 
Katholish has done a great job in delineating how eternality is held by the Church. His discourse brings to mind the two different “infinities” extant. On the one hand, there is what is termed “actual” infinity. It’s only representation is God. It has no beginning, no middle and no end. It is outside of time. It engulfs all of time and beyond. It engulfs all of matter and all of motion, and, like time, is beyond all matter and motion. It is in this sense that God is “eternal.”

On the other hand, there is what is termed “potential” infinity. This is that which has some or many of the properties of an actual infinity, but has not reached actuality yet. In other words, it is still proceeding towards infinity. As long as it continues in the direction of actualizing, it continues to be. It will never stop; it just continues and continues, and unlike the pink bunny, it will continue to continue. Its nature is to forever and ever be in potential to be an actual infinity, but we call it by the same word, “infinity”. It is in this sense that we are eternal.

If at any point a potential infinity should stop, it will only be, at that point, finite. It has part of the characteristics of the infinity that belongs only to God as long as it continues in motion, to expand, to add matter, to add souls, and to add time. However, infinity cannot be acquired; if it is not possessed for all eternity it can never be possessed. As the Church teaches (in The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Ch. III, The One God, By the Rev. A. L. Reys, Vol. I, pg. 89, printed 1962) “That which is infinite in any respect is necessarily infinite in all respects, for infinite cannot be limited to this or that quality, but by definition includes all in all. It follows that whatever is finite in any respect is by that fact alone known to be finite in every respect.”

jd
jd - Many thanks - this is also very helpful. Perhaps we could say that as long as the Church is moving forward in time - as long as it continues to realize its potential - then it is coming more and more to share in God’s eternal nature.

The Church could never actually BE eternal because only God has no beginning. But since the Church will FOREVER be realizing its potential infinity, it’s will FOREVER be growing closer to that timeless attribute of God.

And while I’m thinking of it - since Jesus is the foundation of the Church, since Jesus in a certain sense IS the Church, and since Jesus is God and eternal, couldn’t we say that in that sense the Church is eternal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top