How do I reconcile this doctrine with Aquinas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jshy
  • Start date Start date
Yes but non of that is saying that a body can possibly be a substance . It’s only part of a substance the body itself is not a substance or even a incomplete substance . But part of a substance or part of a incomplete substance if separated from the soul. So it all comes back to a pop infallibly using substance the wrong way , which is probably not even a serious thing and doesn’t affect infallibility. Or you can go the other route and say he was right by using the term that way and that Aquinas and later teachings are wrong. But that also would be a problem because the church took hylomorphism and ran with it and even defined it as you showed . ( your fun to talk to by the way , very smart) I’m new to the church still . So I’m just figuring all this out . It makes me wonder how many more possible supposed contradictions could be in infallible definitions . But I’m sure that they are not Truly contradictions , just like the Bible . A lot of people say that it’s wrong or in error but it’s not. That’s why I like using the speech act theory a lot . ( illocutionary meaning be locutionary ) and from what I know a pope is only infallible when defining morals and faith. But I’m not sure if that includes infallible terms or words to describe the matter of the error free faith or not .I guess I would have to talk to a theologian about that Because the point that Adeodatus was making is infallible but does that mean his words he used to describe the infallible teachings have to be infallible also? That’s a interesting question and I wonder if there are more instances like this .
 
Last edited:
Yes but non of that is saying that a body can possibly be a substance . It’s only part of a substance the body itself is not a substance or even a incomplete substance . But part of a substance or part of a incomplete substance if separated from the soul. … Because the point that Adeodatus was making is infallible but does that mean his words he used to describe the infallible teachings have to be infallible also? That’s a interesting question and I wonder if there are more instances like this .
I don’t know what philosophy Adeodatus was utilizing, perhaps dualism. If it was inconsistent with the decision of the Council of Vienne then the terms he employed were not dogma.
Question
Dualism​
Hylomorphism​
Am I identical to my body?
N​
Y​
Is a corpse a human body?
Y​
N​
Am I identical to my disembodied soul?
Y​
N​
Do I have a soul?
Y​
Y​
Does my soul continue to exist after bodily death?
Y​
Y​
It it interesting that a soul is not a human person. The person ceases to exist when the body ceases to exist through death, but will exist again at the resurrection of the body.

Later note: Saint Augustine learned Platonism and developed the idea of the rational soul per Platonic idea to a Christian view of humans being essentially souls and using their bodies as a means to achieve spiritual ends. This is not along the lines of Aristotle who became popular much later, and I think Adeodatus could have been using Saint Augustine’s Neoplatonic ideas.
 
Last edited:
Death probably is the cause of Adeodatus’ problems. One way of defining death is to say it is when the soul leaves the body, the soul being what gives life to the body. This leads to soul and body as two distinct things, each with its own substance.

As Vico’s table shows us, this is not the way to understand death. When a person dies, we are left with a body without a soul, and a soul without a body, but not two separate substances. The soul only becomes a part of a substance when it is united with a body.

This probably has some interesting implications for our ideas about the souls of the faithful departed in Purgatory. I am sorry I do not know what they are…
 
Wow your right that is interesting lol we aren’t human when we die until we get our bodies back . And good point about Augustine . I haven’t studied much about him yet on the philosophy side .
 
Last edited:
You mean the soul isn’t a complete substance without the body. It’s still a substance just can’t call it human I guess because it’s not a human without the body lol just a incomplete substantial form missing parts ( prime matter) . And yes your right those are some strange ideas to think about .and great points.
 
Last edited:
First, @Vico explained this much better than I did, or probably ever will. I had been thinking about death and its significance here for a few days, and I am at least as likely as Adeodatus to go astray with my articulation.

At death, the soul separates from the body. There are then two separate entities, a body without a soul and a soul without a body. It is a change from a single substance, a human unity of soul and body, to two separate things, which would mean two substances. The soul’s distinguishing feature is that it gives life, and now it is not doing that, so it has changed into a different something and so a different substance.

This notion is probably the basis for Adeodatus saying there are three substances in Christ. It takes the post death idea of two substances and applies it to the pre death conception of a person. There are any number of philosophies that understand a person as a composite of two substances instead of as a substance with two aspects, a body and a soul, which is the Thomistic hylomorphism.

In Purgatory, the soulwithoutabody(swb) is purged for its sins. What is it like for swb to be purged for gluttony? This seems like a bodily sin, but swb has no body. In reality gluttony is an ailment of the soul, not of the body. Its focus is the body, but the sinful part of it is of the soul.

I suppose I should go read Aquinas instead of just speculating. Or Dante maybe. Thanks jshy, for an enlightening thread.
 
40.png
Dovekin:
Or Dante maybe.
Absolutely not. He is a fiction writer and does not speak for the Church.
. . . .

I only have access to Aquinas though his writings and commentary on them. Dante probably learned from the students of Aquinas, and may give glimpses of a truer picture of Purgatory than I could recreate.

. . . .
 
Last edited:
Absolute heresy!

I only have access to Aquinas though his writings and commentary on them. Dante probably learned from the students of Aquinas, and may give glimpses of a truer picture of Purgatory than I could recreate.

(and now I have gone and called someone a heretic!)
I expect an apology or I will flag your post.

Let me repeat my comment. Dante wasa fiction writer and did not speak for the Church.
 
… When a person dies, we are left with a body without a soul, and a soul without a body, but not two separate substances. …
Am I identical to my body?
  • Dualism No, Hylomorphism Yes.
Am I identical to my disembodied soul?
  • Dualism Yes, Hylomorphism No.
The serpent seems to lie about hylomorphism. No only did the body die, but the soul died (loss of grace).

Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. … 4 And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.
 
Last edited:
Most people don’t realize that St. Thomas was largely ignored from almost immediately after his death when one bishop declared some of his philosophical and theological points heretical (they weren’t, in reality. It was just one Bishop’s view of things) until the mid 1800s.
lolwut… Is that really what was going on in Paris? Weren’t the condemnations of 1277 motivated by the popularity of the project? And then the entire commentatorial tradition which flowed from it - moving into the manuals, including Alphonsus, most notably… “largely ignored”???
 
By mentioning the two substances of the body and soul of human nature, Pope Adeodatus II could be referring to that man/woman is not a soul alone or a body alone but a composite of both. Incidentally, Aquinas uses the same terminology in his Compendium of Theology, Chapter 209, “The Teaching of the Faith about the Incarnation,” he writes:
We can gather together the various points established in the foregoing chapters and say that, according to the true teaching of Catholic faith, Christ had a real body of the same nature as ours, a true rational soul, and, together with these, perfect deity. These three substances are united in one person, but do not combine to form one nature.

Aquinas is obviously using substance here, referring to human nature, in a loose sense.

In the Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 76, art. 1, objection 1, there is mention again of Christ existing in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul, and body which Aquinas does not refute in the reply. Again, he is using substance in a more or less loose sense.

Aristotle divides the category of substance (in De Anima and I think Metaphysics too) into form (substantial form), matter, and the composite of both. And at times calls the soul a substance and the body too I think. But it is not substance in the fullest sense of the word which is the composite. Substance properly so called is the individual existing thing, existing apart from other things and complete in its kind or nature. For example, individual people, plants, or animals are substances which at the same time are a composite of substance and accidents.

If we look at the essential components of a material substance, namely, the substantial form and matter or body, individually, they both are real entities or exist. For example, our souls and bodies exist and whatever exists is a being of some kind. In Aristotle’s division of being into substance and accident, the ten categories of being, is the soul or body made out of matter substance or an accident? They both belong in the category of substance. They are both substance and can be called a substance it appears in a loose sense, or better yet incomplete beings.

The parts of the body can be called substances or substance in a loose or weak sense. For example, do our hands exist? Of course, and whatever exists is a being of some kind, namely, a substance or accident. The hand is not an accident but a substantial part of the whole human body, indeed, of the whole man/woman. So the hand is a kind of individual substance, but not a substance in the fullest sense of the word because it does exist by itself but is a part of a larger whole. In the Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 16, art. 12, reply to obj. 2, Aquinas calls a man’s hand “an individual substance.” Of course, he is calling it an individual substance in a qualified sense such as a kind of individual or a kind of ‘this particular thing’.
 
Last edited:
I do not mean heresy in any theological sense. It was only meant as a stronger, comedic version of your “Absolutely not!”

If you apologize for casting Dante out of the Church, I will apologize for calling you a heretic.(Dante btw was VERY comfortable with casting others out of the Church)
 
I am speaking of content, not of style. Even then, the commentary tradition which St. Thomas used was highly popularized long before St. Thomas. The Manualist mentality came out of scholatiscism in general, not necessarily St. Thomas specifically. Much of what we read in the manualists that we point to as “Thomism” today is definitively not just from Thomas. It is primarily just the general theological norm of Parisian Scholasticism of the time (much of which is first attributed to Albertus Magnus, not Thomas).

There are actually very few uniquely Thomistic points of theology which were actively used until the neo-Thomistic movements of the mid 1800s. The primary ones were those concerning purely spiritual beings, thus his title Doctor Angelicus.
 
Last edited:
(continued)
All this might seem a little confusing but there are different senses in which the word substance can be used. Aristotle resolves these different senses into two, namely, first and second substance. It might help to read Aquinas’ commentaries on Aristotle’s metaphysics and his other works such as De Anima in which Aristotle writes about this. From what I said above, Aquinas is not saying that individual things are composed of many substances. Simply put, individual material things have one substantial form and they are one substance, one being, a composite of form and matter. Neither the form or the matter exists by itself but the composite of form and matter is what individually exists and is a single substance or being.
 
Last edited:
There are actually very few uniquely Thomistic points of theology which were actively used until the neo-Thomistic movements of the mid 1800s. The primary ones were those concerning purely spiritual beings, thus his title Doctor Angelicus.
Except by Dante, whose Divine Comedy is full of Thomas’ theology.

And is definitely not just about Angels.
 
I think we are not on the same page at all. I mean the tradition of commenting ON St. Thomas…

But maybe I have blinders on. The Jesuits did engage in serious studies of Thomas though, from their early days…

For what it’s worth, Aeterni Patris failed, it seems.
 
Am I identical to my body?
  • Dualism No, Hylomorphism Yes.
Am I identical to my disembodied soul?
  • Dualism Yes, Hylomorphism No.
The serpent seems to lie about hylomorphism. No only did the body die, but the soul died (loss of grace).
I’m confused about that So when someone is dead I guess we should say that body is the person even though they live on with there soul? Isn’t the soul the substantial form though ? A substance is who we are right ? We are a soul and the body is just a image ( matter ) of this soul . Sort of like idealism . So why wouldn’t be identical to both which make up this composite or better yet why wouldn’t we be identical to the soul when we can live without the body. And are not embodied for some time . It seems silly to me to say my body is me but not who I am currently outside my body? Maybe I’m miss understanding
 
Woah! Thanks for showing me this . Great great research. I’m glad I have pals like you and vico and everyone on here . This forum is great , great people one here to help out .
 
Last edited:
40.png
Vico:
Am I identical to my body?
  • Dualism No, Hylomorphism Yes.
Am I identical to my disembodied soul?
  • Dualism Yes, Hylomorphism No.
The serpent seems to lie about hylomorphism. No only did the body die, but the soul died (loss of grace).
I’m confused about that So when someone is dead I guess we should say that body is the person even though they live on with there soul? Isn’t the soul the substantial form though ? A substance is who we are right ? We are a soul and the body is just a image ( matter ) of this soul . Sort of like idealism . So why wouldn’t be identical to both which make up this composite or better yet why wouldn’t we be identical to the soul when we can live without the body. And are not embodied for some time . It seems silly to me to say my body is me but not who I am currently outside my body? Maybe I’m miss understanding
The way of thinking is dualism. (Plato separated forms from objects. Aristotle taught that the form was in the object. Aquinas, that a person is a soul-body unity.)

The immortal immaterial soul is a substance in itself, naturally ordained toward a material body, but when separated from the body the soul is an incomplete substance. The human person is the complete substance. The soul is the form of a body, an incomplete substance. There is no body without a soul, but there is a soul without a body.
 
This is very difficult for me to understand Aristotle, Aquinas, and others. The word “substance” was added by way of merely theology & philosophy. It did not come from divine revelation (the bible). It sprung out suddenly one day from the mouth of one of the theologians, or adopted from the greek philosophers. Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

But when I read the bible it is very clear what Jesus say we are of flesh & Spirit. God Spirit lives in me, if I believe in the Son (1Epistle of John).

In Genesis 6, God say that humans were merely flesh, and therefore He decided to shorten our lifespan to maximum 120years. This passage is in the context that humanity had fallen into many sins at the time.

Jesus said to Nicodemus that what’s born of flesh is flesh, what’s born of spirit is spirit. And that we receive the Holy Spirit when we believe in Jesus Christ. We also will receive new body when we are resurrected together with Him to eternal life. Both the new body and spirit belong to God.

Our present body also belong to God. We are who we are, because of Him who create us. We are the temple of God, God’s Spirit lives in us.

Jesus body was born of virgin Mary. But after the resurrection, He has a new body which He himself raised.

John 2

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

And, in the book of Revelation, Jesus is said as “The first born from the dead”. I am sure that term did not refer to his old body which was born of virgin Mary. Rather, the first born from the dead, refers to His New Resurrected Body, which He himself raised (John 2:19-21)

Revelation 1

5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top