aaronjmagnan:
I don’t think I said opposition. I am saying a difference. There is a reason why our souls are different from our bodies, and while the soul is not new in heaven, the body is. Paul’s “flesh” must mean both the body and the human appetite, for they are almost one in the same.
No, they aren’t the same thing. Theologians from Irenaeus to Luther have pointed this out. I recognize that Luther carries no weight with you, but surely Irenaeus does.
I can see that my phrase “uniting soul and body” confused you. My apologies. I should perhaps have said something like “bringing into harmony.” Of course I did not mean “fuse” or “blend.” In what sense there will be a difference between soul and body in the resurrection I don’t know. I speculate that a “spiritual body” may be one that knows no such distinction, but of course this is just speculation. But obviously in this life there
is such a distinction, and furthermore the body
is weak and subject to the passions. But God’s grace is leading us toward the day when this will no longer be the case.
aaronjmagnan:
As far as things resulting from the fall, I think that was cleaned up with Baptism.
If you think that all the effects of the Fall are overcome in baptism, then you really are contradicting Catholic doctrine. But surely you can’t mean that. We still die, after all. And that (pending the general resurrection) is the ultimate expression of separation between the soul and body.
Sorry for going down a rabbit trail about the Middle Ages and demons. I recognize that you were tipping your hat ironically to the silly stereotype that medieval people (at least in the High Middle Ages) were particularly obsessed with demons. That happens to be a pet peeve of mine, so I took the opportunity to let you know that I don’t share that mistaken assumption. But it wasn’t really relevant.
aaronjmagnan:
Well, the Catholic teaching is that our goal is consciousness via the sacraments (check out Karl Adam), not unconsciousness.
I don’t think the goal is unconsciousness at all.
aaronjmagnan:
Once again, you are assuming that someone who is concerned with Yoga is necessarily anti-mystic.
No, I’m not assuming any such thing. All I meant was that if you have problems with language of “letting go” or emptying the mind, then you have at least one important strand of Catholic mysticism against you.
aaronjmagnan:
In fact, the existence of Catholic mysticism is enough for some to understand that “visions” and such are gifts of the Holy Spirit, not something done by letting go.
Letting go of one’s own ego and even in a sense one’s own thought is taught by many Catholic mystics as a means by which we open ourselves to the Holy Spirit. Of course mystical experience is a gift of grace–but Catholicism teaches (rightly) that free grace and human activity are not incompatible. First you speak as if language of “letting go” is not active enough, and now you seem to be saying that it contradicts the freedom fo the Spirit. But neither of these things is true. “Letting go” involves the will and conscience, and it only leads to positive spiritual results through the grace of the Spirit. Without the Spirit, anything we do (or don’t do) is useless.
Also, visions are hardly what mysticism is all about. Most mystics would say that visions are a minor and peripheral phenomenon and you shouldn’t pay much attention to them. For that matter, I was not necessarily talking about mysticism. I do not consider myself fit to express an opinion about mysticism until I’ve gotten a lot further with the basics of the Christian life.
