Examining Orthodox Theology

[fnr]

But this reasoning is not thomistic at all- Otherwise, do you believe that the demons of hell have physical bodies? Do you believe that they therefore do not suffer in hell, eternally separated from God as they are?

The flaw in the reasoning is the conflation of “suffering” with “physical pain”- Bodies suffer in a physical manner (which just means the lack of physical goods like comfort, health etc) because they are physical. The spirit suffers in a spiritual manner because it’s a spirit.

I will argue that the reasoning is Thomistic, in that Thomism is based on Aristotle, rather than Plato. More on that in a second. I am also making use of the method of scholasticism in taking contrasting authorities and trying to make them work together.

Thomism isn’t just the recitation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica or other writings. It’s making use of reason, with a progressive understanding of the world though prayerful observation and study (this being a mode by which understaning of faith can grow, at 94 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

In this discussion of purgatory, we are discussing life after death. That being the case, there are two essential things we know from life and scripture about human states after death: first, our physical bodies die (souls and bodies have seperate lives); second, our resurrection is physical and bodily (as Christ’s), with our ultimate place of residence “the Holy City” in Revelation 21. That city comes down from heaven, and we dwell with God there, in the new Earth, joined with heaven.

I want to stress this point: the Rapture, believed by so many Christians based on a misreading of 1 Thessalonians 4 is NOT Biblical (being a misunderstanding of a Roman imperial parousia used as an analogy of how we will greet Christ’s second coming). That means our final destination is not Heaven. This has profound implications for understanding the state of the soul between death and resurrection.

Heaven is a stopover, not a final destination. On that basis, I will make the supposition that the soul, unified with the body in the resurrected body is happier and more “at home” than it will be prior to the resurrection of the body. To quote 1 Corinthians 5:20, “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” Firstfruits are the first things harvested.

Note the “fallen asleep” of which Paul makes reference. Sleep is not a conscious state. Yes, it could be read metaphorically, but in context of resurrection, the state of souls that not yet realized their resurrection is not optimum.

Much modern culture, and Evangelical theology, portrays heaven and earth in Platonic terms – that is, never the two shall meet. There is an uncrossable gulf between Heaven and earth, which only the dead (and Christ) may pass. At death, the soul rises up in the form of ghosts to the sky. But this is not Biblical. Resurrection is a fleshy experience.

The CCC makes clear that “body and soul” are a union, such that the soul can be considered the form of the body. Genesis tells us that humankind – its physical and spiritual union – is made in the image and likeness of God. A human soul, disembodied before the resurrection on the Last Day, is incomplete.

I’m just using science, in the same way that Aquinas did in his day with regard to linking the sense organs to the sensory capabilities of the soul. Modern neuroscience, learning that personality, emotion, memory, and behaviors change with traumatic brain injury and stroke, have established beyond a reasonable doubt that thought, emotion, and memory are physical phenomena of the brain and extended nervous system, in an environmental context (e.g., perception). A disembodied soul has neither nervous system nor sense organs. Given that, I can’t conclude that the soul has consciousness. Emotional torment – psychological suffering – would seem to require a nervous system in which the neural connections that make up emotion reside.

In combination, scripture tells us that we have a physical resurrection in a glorified body. Science tells us that emotion, memory, and cognition are phenomena of the nervous system. The CCC tells us that body and soul are a united in a single nature.

I can’t speak to demons. Angels (former demons) were created differently from humankind, and fell differently from humankind. To my knowledge, no one has ever recorded (e.g., photograph, x-ray) an experience with a demon, so I imagine that they are strictly spiritual creatures. I can’t speak to their capacity for pain – God made them differently from us.

Example- Have you never done something truly terrible that you deeply regretted, or hurt someone innocent or someone you deeply loved or had the obligation to? What kind of suffering would you say you went through in this knowledge of what you had done and also of knowledge that you had no way of reversing it? Was it purely physical pain?

No, the pain was emotional and psychological, which happened in my brain and nervous system. My body probably got involved too – sick stomach, etc.

Also, I think that what you’re suggesting has some consequences you may not agree with if you considered it in its full implications.

Actually, I am fully prepared to face whatever the consequences are. I believe in the fullness of truth taught by the Catholic Church. I also believe that the scientific method is a way to lean truth about the universe and humankind. I don’t believe two truths can contradict one another. My username fnr = “faith and reason.” And to be honest, I’m not at all afraid of losing my faith with this inquiry. It was disturbing when I first started thinking about it, but then I read the Bible and the Catechism and I felt a lot better.

I just don’t think this agrees with our theology at all. Happiness and the lack thereof (which is suffering) are properties and capacities of the soul, much much more than they are of the body. Only each aspect suffers according its manner, according to the kinds of goods it lacks but desperately craves.

And this is where I’ll differ. Happiness as we understand it is an emotion the soul experiences through the body. As I’ve said before, the Bible says the soul can live, die, and love. That means that love is something that’s not contingent on emotion. If in purgatory, a soul is not loving properly, maybe it’s painful to give up that improper love (e.g., selfish love). I don’t see any problem with God realigning the soul to proper love. But then when the soul goes to Heaven, it’s still a disembodied soul that loves properly.

I think many people are surprised to learn that neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible teach that our final destination is Heaven. Much cultural influence of Plato

The CCC 362-368 is worth a read, the section “Body and Soul are One.”

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That means our final destination is not Heaven. This has profound implications for understanding the state of the soul between death and resurrection.

Heaven is a stopover, not a final destination. On that basis, I will make the supposition that the soul, unified with the body in the resurrected body is happier and more “at home” than it will be prior to the resurrection of the body.

I think many people are surprised to learn that neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible teach that our final destination is Heaven. Much cultural influence of Plato.

You really shouldn’t put it that way. It’s highly misleading. Yes, people confuse Platonism for Resurrection; yes, people don’t understand the eschatological importance of the Resurrection of the Body; yes, people don’t understand that there will be a New Heaven and New Earth.

But none of that makes it anything but wildly misleading to say, “Our final destination is not Heaven.” Like it or not, fnr, “Heaven” as a word does in fact denote more than some kind of purely Platonic spiritual realm: it does, at least in our culture, also denote that final state of union with God which the blessed enjoy, body and soul, in the New Heaven and Earth.

The necessity of distinguishing the former from the latter, which I applaud you for pointing out, does not justify the misleading summary, “Neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible teaches that our final destination is Heaven.”

 

[Marybeloved]

What youve described there pure and simple is materialism. The intellect is more that the electromagnetic activity of the brain. Science can tell us what part of the brain is used in thinking. It cannot tell us anything about the non physical soul and its capbilities. You seem to be saying that since we can map thinking and all the other sensual processess to the brain that that must be all there is to the human intellect. That is simply making science say what it cannot, that beyond the brain activity no other intellectual faculty exists. But that would be assuming that all that intellection work that is non material would be emprically observable physically. Not true. We know what the brain does when we think, that does not stand for what happens in the soul,when we do so, as its outside the scope of scientific observation.

Also, what do you make of the parable of the rich man and lazarus? They all sem, plus lazurus, to know everything thatt’s happening and even communicate down there, and the rich man is certainly suffering and aware of his suffering. How does this fit into your theory?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You really shouldn’t put it that way. It’s highly misleading. Yes, people confuse Platonism for Resurrection; yes, people don’t understand the eschatological importance of the Resurrection of the Body; yes, people don’t understand that there will be a New Heaven and New Earth.

But none of that makes it anything but wildly misleading to say, “Our final destination is not Heaven.” Like it or not, fnr, “Heaven” as a word does in fact denote more than some kind of purely Platonic spiritual realm: it does, at least in our culture, also denote that final state of union with God which the blessed enjoy, body and soul, in the New Heaven and Earth.

The necessity of distinguishing the former from the latter, which I applaud you for pointing out, does not justify the misleading summary, “Neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible teaches that our final destination is Heaven.”

In particular the last sentence which fits into the scientific exegesis about as well as a Square peg in a Round hole. Nor do is see how one connects the CCC with that statement.

II. “Body and Soul but Truly One”

362
The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic LANGUAGE when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363
In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364
The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.233

365
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366
The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced” by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367
Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly,” with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368
The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

Or the Catholic Mystics.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=catholic%20mystics%20purgatory&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysticsofthechurch.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fexplanation-of-purgatory-part-1-of-2.html&ei=ccowUPO1Jcnv0gHUuYCwBw&usg=AFQjCNESkHP9BA0e9oP6eqYtMKEv67GI-Q

Let alone how any of that coincides with the East in Orthodox Theology.

 

[fnr]

You really shouldn’t put it that way. It’s highly misleading. Yes, people confuse Platonism for Resurrection; yes, people don’t understand the eschatological importance of the Resurrection of the Body; yes, people don’t understand that there will be a New Heaven and New Earth.

But none of that makes it anything but wildly misleading to say, “Our final destination is not Heaven.” Like it or not, fnr, “Heaven” as a word does in fact denote more than some kind of purely Platonic spiritual realm: it does, at least in our culture, also denote that final state of union with God which the blessed enjoy, body and soul, in the New Heaven and Earth.

The necessity of distinguishing the former from the latter, which I applaud you for pointing out, does not justify the misleading summary, “Neither the Catholic Church nor the Bible teaches that our final destination is Heaven.”

I actually think it misleads people to say that our final destination is Heaven. In Revelation 21:2-3, it says:
“I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people4 and God himself will always be with them (as their God).’”

This needs to be read in the context of the whole Old Testament and New Testament soteriology. In the OT, God dwelt in a tabernacle/tent until the temple was built. Then people went to access God’s mercy in the temple. In the NT, Christ’s resurrection tears open the veil to the Holy of Holies, and in Acts 8, Stephen’s speech points to the temple becoming an idol after Christ. In the end of Revelation, there is no separation between God and his people in the physical, new Earth, united with the new Heaven. This is all of a piece.

I think the Rapture is a harmful, anti-humanitarian reading that way too many people believe.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I actually think its mistaken to believe otherwise, the issue becomes defining Heaven and the Kingdom of God, which is defined.

II. HEAVEN

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:598

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” The elect live "in Christ,"600 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.601

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.602

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."603

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.604

1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."605

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

 

[fnr]

I actually think its mistaken to believe otherwise, the issue becomes defining Heaven and the Kingdom of God, which is defined.

II. HEAVEN

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:598

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” The elect live "in Christ,"600 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.601

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

I’ll note a few things, then follow up with a few others from the CCC.

First, Heaven is a state we experience before the general judgment and before our bodily resurrection. Second, souls see with “intuitive vision,” not physical senses. Third, the discussion of purgatory makes no mention of the experience of pain. Fourth, in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. Fifth, the “new Heaven and new Earth” are the ultimate expression of divine intent. The current Heaven and the current earth are temporary places, as indicated in the following language from the CCC:

*1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:
"The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.629"
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."630 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."631

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.632 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."633*

I’ll suggest that the “intuitive vision” of the soul in Heaven is less than the full actualization of God’s plan for humanity. On the “Last Day,” we will be glorified in body and soul, together. Until then, Heaven is, as I said, a stopover. A wondrous one in which our souls get to be with God, but still not the full “future” than God has in store for us.

It seems to me that saying that Heaven (i.e., pre-Last Day) as a final destination of humanity is to moot the wonder of the resurrection. A soul going to Heaven is not the resurrection.

My fundamental contention in all of this is to try, for the sake of ecumenism, to suggest that the theosis discussed by the Orthodox, is not really different from the Catholic understanding of Purgatory.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, Heaven is a state we experience before the general judgment and before our bodily resurrection. Second, souls see with “intuitive vision,” not physical senses. Third, the discussion of purgatory makes no mention of the experience of pain. Fourth, in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. Fifth, the “new Heaven and new Earth” are the ultimate expression of divine intent. The current Heaven and the current earth are temporary places, as indicated in the following language from the CCC.

Heaven is above 1023-1029. Second the Soul seeing with the “intuitive sense” not the physical sense doesn’t mention anything about no-emotion as you suggest in the continued process from physical death to the final judgement. In fact this suggests otherwise.

intuitive - based on what one “feels” to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.
:

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:
"The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.629"
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."630 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."631.

Your at the final judgement again which has nothing to do with purification process called purgatory.
fnr;9667238:

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.632 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."633

.

And this…

Indicates… emotion. tears, “pain no more” also indicates there will be pain till this point which surpassed purification etc. Which you also suggest above isn’t stated anywhere, Then why do you connect it here?

I’ll suggest that the “intuitive vision” of the soul in Heaven is less than the full actualization of God’s plan for humanity. On the “Last Day,” we will be glorified in body and soul, together. Until then, Heaven is, as I said, a stopover. A wondrous one in which our souls get to be with God, but still not the full “future” than God has in store for us…

No doubt

It seems to me that saying that Heaven (i.e., pre-Last Day) as a final destination of humanity is to moot the wonder of the resurrection. A soul going to Heaven is not the resurrection…

Right but we are talking the purification process not the complition of it.

My fundamental contention in all of this is to try, for the sake of ecumenism, to suggest that the theosis discussed by the Orthodox, is not really different from the Catholic understanding of Purgatory.

Who sees this as a continued process and the point’s have been discussed throughout the thread in relation to Florence etc. You made a “new” point that there is No Emotion between death and the Final Judgement due to your understanding.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Grant rest, O Lord, to your servant / handmaiden, and receive him / her in the place where the just repose, where there is no pain, sorrow, nor mourning, but life everlasting.

An ancient and oft recited petition and prayer for the faithful departed in Byzantine usage. I often reflect on its meaning in this context.

 

[GaryTaylor]

An ancient and oft recited petition and prayer for the faithful departed in Byzantine usage. I often reflect on its meaning in this context.

I would assume the phrase in contingent on the word repose which IMHO indicates the physical state of death. Is there more context?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I would assume the phrase in contingent on the word repose which IMHO indicates the physical state of death. Is there more context?

Repose means “rest”. As for context, this is it - we reflect on the inherent mysteries from there.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Repose means “rest”. As for context, this is it - we reflect on the inherent mysteries from there.

Thanks, I pretty much understand the EO position. I’m not sure I’m understanding what fnr is saying, I might have missed the point there.

Neverlheless I pretty much see this as a continuation of Gods love. I’m not seeing a point where that would cease to exist between here and the Kingdom come.

 

[fnr]

Heaven is above 1023-1029. Second the Soul seeing with the “intuitive sense” not the physical sense doesn’t mention anything about no-emotion as you suggest in the continued process from physical death to the final judgement. In fact this suggests otherwise.

My point is that even the Catechism, like Aquinas, here acknowledges that the soul does not have the the same faculties it has when united with the body. My argument is that we can’t say what the soul feels, but that we can say that its experience of Heaven alone is inferior to its experience in the resurrection. In terms of a more classical understanding of the soul, that might be only because the soul longs for the ultimate fulfillment of God’s will on the Last Day. If we were to be more informed by cognitive neuroscience and to conclude that consciousness takes place in the physical nervous system, then we seem to come to where the Catechism is: that the soul relies on intuition alone to experience God. But we can’t assume that the soul’s intuition in heaven is anything like our experience of intuition before death.

As the CCC says, the soul is the “form” of the body (in Aristotelian parlance). For human experience to be complete, the soul must be instantiated in the “substance” of matter. This is where Platonism is dangerous: it can become Gnosticism. Our full experience of God can never be totally detached from our experience in the flesh, just as the experience of the resurrected Christ was in the flesh. 1 John warns about the dangers of anyone claiming that Christ was not raised in the flesh.

Your at the final judgement again which has nothing to do with purification process called purgatory.

Right but we are talking the purification process not the complition of it.

However, it’s in examining our pre-resurrected body, like Aquinas, we can examine the capacities of the soul by reference to what human faculties are mediated through the body (sensation and movement in Aquinas’s time), and what are inherent to the soul. Our resurrected body has all our faculties, and will have more. So the question is: between death and resurrection, when purgation/theosis and our experience of Heaven occurs, what can the soul experience? Neuroscience definitively tells us that that the following experiential phenomena occur in the brain or nervous system: sensation, emotion, thought, memory, motor control, endocrine control. Therefore, the post-death/pre-resurrection soul does not experience these things, at least in the same manner it does pre-death/post-resurrection. We know from scripture that the soul can live, die, and love. The CCC tells us it has intuition, but that’s a very spare description (for good reason).

Indicates… emotion. tears, “pain no more” also indicates there will be pain till this point which surpassed purification etc. Which you also suggest above isn’t stated anywhere, Then why do you connect it here?

Actually, there is one more verse of scripture that addresses our experience of death and resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:50-52.
“50 This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”

Typically, “we shall not all fall asleep” has been interpreted as saying that Paul expected the Second Coming (parousia) of Christ to happen within the lifetimes of his compatriots. However, viewing his writing through the lens of human consciousness, it suggests that there can be an instantaneous change between the consciousness of this life and the consciousness of our resurrected body. We don’t hear Paul talking about awareness of suffering. “*n the blink of an eye” is pretty quick!

Who sees this as a continued process and the point’s have been discussed throughout the thread in relation to Florence etc. You made a “new” point that there is No Emotion between death and the Final Judgement due to your understanding.

I can plead guilty to rehashing old business, but to me, the nature of the soul is very much central to the discussion of how a soul is prepared for Heaven: theosis, purgation, whatever you want to call it.*

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

This raises an interesting issue, To what extent can 2nd millennium Latin dogmatic formulations be abstracted from the scholastic theology which gave them birth. I don’t know the answer, but it is an interesting question. The dogmatic formulations governing purgatory, as you have observed, really fairly limited; but clearly the ordinary teaching of the Latin Church on purgatory is consderably more extensive.

Understood, Father. The fact that you used to be a Latin Catholic priest would seem to dictate your approach to the whole matter - you were raised in and reacted against a specifically LATIN concept of Catholicism. For myself, I am more at peace considering MERELY the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. I think what you interpret as the Latin Catholic Church modifying its teaching is not really the case. I think what is happening is that the Latin Catholic Church is more explicitly growing out of its parochialism and focusing more on the ESSENCE of its dogmas on a popular level, which just happens to have a lot in common with the other Traditions of the Catholic Church. I notice that the Catholic Encycopedia gives a more holistic approach to the Tradition of the Latin Catholic Church, not pinning down its theology to any one theologian. Perhaps you can re-consider the Latin Catholic Church in such a clinical fashion. I’m not proselytizing you – I just wanted to offer an alternative way to approach the matter for the sake of understanding.

This is probably an impossible question for me to answer.

Thank you for the honesty.

First, you would have to carefully define “satisfaction” and provide its proper theological, catechetical, and pastoral context.

I think I provided a rather good primer in post #279. Let me repeat it here with some citations (since my lack of citations caused you to assess my statements as my own mere opinion - remember that I approach this from a dogmatic pov, not the statements of singular theologians).

JUSTICE taken as such refers to nothing more nor less than this - a quality which renders what is due. The question is, what is it that is due? Here we need to delve into the notion of ORIGINAL JUSTICE. According to Catholic thought, Original Justice consists of the possession of the Sanctifying Grace with which God created our first parents (this is not a modern Catholic interpretation by the way, but has ALWAYS been the Catholic teaching).
“Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.” (“Original Sin,” old Catholic Encyclopedia)

“the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace…
The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical: those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature.” (“Concupiscence,” old Catholic Encyclopedia)

“In this way our salvation has won back for us the essential prerogative of the state of original justice, i.e., sanctifying grace.” (“Salvation,” old Catholic Encyclopedia)

So when Catholic scholars speak of God’s Justice being met, from St. Anselm down to today, they are not referring to some sort of sheer legal requirement, but of the essence of deification - acquiring (or rather, re-acquiring) the holiness that God intends FOR US. This is what was lost, and this is what is due - the Sanctifying Grace. God’s justice is not about retribution or vengeance, but the means by which we BECOME HOLY. This is exactly what Scripture tells us, is it not - if we were not His Sons, we would not be chastised. Father, you need to study the essence of the difference between what the Catholic Church taught at Trent regarding Divine Justice over and against what the Reformers taught. EO often criticize the Catholic Church for its legalism regarding its doctrine of Divine Justice, but the EO criticism is utterly misplaced for it is constantly mistaking the Protestant doctrine of pure legal satisfaction for the true Catholic doctrine of deification/sanctification.
“Reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and thus belonging to some of the deepest mysteries of the Christian Faith. It is the teaching of that Faith that man is a creature who has fallen from an original state of justice in which he was created, and that through the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of the Son of God, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition. Although God might have condoned men’s offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in His Providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man’s education that wrong doing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the Sufferings, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. By voluntary submission to His Passion and Death on the Cross, Jesus Christ atoned for our disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures. We are restored to grace through the merits of Christ’s Death, and that grace enables us to add our prayers, labours, and trials to those of Our Lord “and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24). We can thus make some sort of reparation to the justice of God for our own offences against Him, and by virtue of the Communion of the Saints, the oneness and solidarity of the mystical Body of Christ, we can also make satisfaction and reparation for the sins of others. (“Reparation,” old Catholic Encyclopedia)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I will conclude this portion by repeating something from the old Catholic Encyclopedia which I quoted earlier in post #314: “That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man’s laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate.”

I rather trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia in its assessment of things pertaining to the Latin Catholic Church. And here you have it – these ideas we have discussed from singular Catholic theologians (what I believe to be the misplaced focus of criticisms against the Catholic doctrine on the Justice of God) can not be taken as Catholic dogma itself. The Catholic Truth is much more nuanced than that - dogma is universal and inherently and necessarily contains nuance… That is why I believe we need to focus on dogmatic declarations instead of the writings of singular Latin Catholic theologians.

Second, to do the Orthodox critique of satisfaction justice, we would probably have to discuss the role of merit in Catholicism’s understanding of justification–and that is beyond my competence.

My understanding of merit is rather simple- they are the talents of which the Lord spoke in his parables – the more you have, the more will be given you. The beautiful Truth about the doctrine is that the efficacious source of “merit” is nothing more nor less than the Graces obtained by our Lord from the Cross. “Merit” is simply the peculiarly Latin theological expression for what Orthodox would call “synergy.” When all the parochial theological expressions have been removed, both “merit” and “synergy” amount to the same thing – the participation of the human being in the divine life which has its Source from the Cross.

When I was a Catholic, I was accused by more than one traditional Catholic of distorting magisterial Catholic teaching on justification because of my high regard for the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification, which of course does not enjoy magisterial status. Many contemporary Catholic theologians and pastors have sought to move beyond the language of merit and satisfaction when speaking of these matters; but the fact remains that this language is enshrined in dogma, which is always available to be used as a club to silence those who prefer the Apostle Paul to the Council of Trent.

Ironically, the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement (which you find favorable) is on the same theological standing as the opinions of the theologians we have discussed (which you do not find favorable). But instead of appreciating the breadth of the Catholic Tradition which CAN allow for these varied theological opinions, you seemed to have only focused on the negative aspect. Earlier you asked if it was possible to distinguish the dogma from the theological background that informs it. You seem to have been able to do so as far as the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement is concerned. Your journey is your own, and your reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are according to your conscience, I have no doubt. But I think my observation deserves some consideration, perhaps?

Speaking just as an ordinary preacher and pastor, I will say that I find traditional Catholicism’s juridical construal of justification and penance to be well beyond my sympathies. I could put my criticism in much stronger terms, but I honestly do not want to contentious or polemical. If you’d like to discuss this privately, Marduk, I’d be happy to do so.

I am interested in reading about your journey, but for purely academic reasons. As observed earlier, your journey from the Catholic Church was obviously informed by your experience in a Latin Catholic milieu, whereas my own journey to the Catholic Church was far removed from such considerations. In other words, I don’t think I would be able to completely appreciate your POV since your theological presuppositions in moving away from the Catholic Church were/are different from my own theological presuppositions in moving towards the Catholic Church. I mean, I did not enter the Catholic Church believing that the Latin theological expressions were the be-all-and-end-all of the Faith. Given your background, it is obviously difficult if not impossible to divorce yourself from that in your own conscience, which I fully understand and appreciate.

Blessings,
Marduk