Resurrection of the Body

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
When was the Resurrection of the bodies made into dogma? I am asking because I read from Aquinas how it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith. From this he thought you couldn’t prove the non-eternity of the world. Now, if the soul is incomplete without the body, if there is an afterlife for the good than the resurrection could be proven from reason.

So what I am wondering about is: can it be proven from reason that the soul is immortal within Aquinas’s system?
 
thinkandmull said:
When was the Resurrection of the bodies made into dogma?
Click to expand...
At the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381): we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Although it can be inferred from the First Council of Nicea (AD 325) in the Creed: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead (so presumably the dead will be raised; otherwise judgement would be rather pointless).
I am asking because I read from Aquinas how it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith.
Click to expand...
I think you are misreading Aquinas. He taught that we can know God from reason alone, and he is the author of the “five classic proofs” for God (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 2, Article 3)
From this he thought you couldn’t prove the non-eternity of the world.
Click to expand...
But he did prove it. Proof #2 (First Cause).
So what I am wondering about is: can it be proven from reason that the soul is immortal within Aquinas’s system?
Click to expand...
No.
 
I haven’t had time to find where Aquinas talks about what reason can know about the immortality of the soul. But if he believes that Creation cannot be known by reason because it is an article of faith, I don’t see how he can argue definitely from reason that the soul is immortal because the resurrection of the body is an article of faith and how can the soul be immortal without a resurrection of the body? The two go together like apple pie and milk!
 
thinkandmull said:
When was the Resurrection of the bodies made into dogma?
Click to expand...
The resurrection of the body is explicit in the New Testament. It didn’t need to be “made” into dogma. (Indeed, per Jesus’ conversation with the sisters at Lazarus’ tomb, the belief was a Jewish one that predates Jesus Himself.)

Usagi
 
thinkandmull said:
I haven’t had time to find where Aquinas talks about what reason can know about the immortality of the soul. But if he believes that Creation cannot be known by reason because it is an article of faith, I don’t see how he can argue definitely from reason that the soul is immortal because the resurrection of the body is an article of faith and how can the soul be immortal without a resurrection of the body? The two go together like apple pie and milk!
Click to expand...
The resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul are actually two different beliefs that do not always coincide. Folks who believe in reincarnation believe in the immortality of the soul, but not in the resurrection of any particular body. Gnostics believe in an immortal soul but hold that the whole purpose of existence is to escape the cage of the body. Conversely, there are a few Christian groups that believe the immortal soul was a pagan intrusion into Christianity, but do believe in the bodily resurrection at the end of time.

Obviously, for us Catholics both ideas go together, but it is not true that they have to.

Usagi
 
For Catholics the body and the soul go together, therefore if we can know the immortality of the soul, we can know the resurrection of the body. But if the resurrection of the body is revealed truth, than Aquinas is wrong in saying revealed truth cannot be known by reason.
 
thinkandmull said:
When was the Resurrection of the bodies made into dogma? I am asking because I read from Aquinas how it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith. From this he thought you couldn’t prove the non-eternity of the world. Now, if the soul is incomplete without the body, if there is an afterlife for the good than the resurrection could be proven from reason.

So what I am wondering about is: can it be proven from reason that the soul is immortal within Aquinas’s system?
Click to expand...
Some matters of Revelation are also provable by reason.
Traditionally the existence of God, Creation from Nothing, Natural Law (the Ten Commandments) and The Immortality of the Soul.

(The “Eternity of the World”, apparently, is not mutually exclusive of Creation from Nothing.)

Whether anyone, including Aquinas, has actually done so is open to debate.
 
thinkandmull said:
I haven’t had time to find where Aquinas talks about what reason can know about the immortality of the soul. But if he believes that Creation cannot be known by reason because it is an article of faith
Click to expand...
Apparently you have not had time to find where Aquinas teaches ANYTHING. Because this statement is absolutely absurd.

HELLO??? Have you ever heard of the Scholastics? Who is their founder, and Patron Saint? (hint to pinheads: it was St. Thomas Aquinas). And what is the hallmark of the Scholastic movement (which continues to influence Catholic theology even today)? Wasn’t it a philosophical foundation in the quest of truth known by reason? Wasn’t this the source of the Scholastic (and very silly) debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
I don’t see how he can argue definitely from reason that the soul is immortal because the resurrection of the body is an article of faith and how can the soul be immortal without a resurrection of the body? The two go together like apple pie and milk!
Click to expand...
He didn’t’ argue any such thing, (Edited).

At this point, you’re gonna have to actually quote some Aquinas. Because, so far, you are talking utter nonsense. (Edited)
 
From that link

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.
 
thinkandmull said:
From that link

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.
Click to expand...
TAM if you are so confidant of your view why would anybody philosophically knowledgeable want to assist you to see you are mistaken?

I suggest you, being an autodidact?, have misunderstood Aquinas.

Can you quote and source exactly what Aquinas said?
 
It helps us understand where you are coming from. Asking a question about a particular point which is described in a long and theologically complicated treaties, without citing the appropriate text, is unreasonable. Especially because Aquinas (as a philosopher) presents both sides of an argument, and some people (frequently) mistake his presentation of a flawed argument as his OWN argument, without bothering to read ahead to the part where Aquinas demolishes the argument. Since this is a frequent error, and since you posted something that is absolutely contrary to the teaching of Aquinas, I ask that you forgive me (and us) of demanding a relevant citation.
thinkandmull said:
From that link

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.
Click to expand...
Ah, an actual citation. You have (mis)interpreted Aquinas, as I thought you must have done.

You cite an objection (of Aquinas) to Q46A2O8. Objection 8 stipulated that the world (and humanity) had eternally existed, so (therefore) there must be an infinite number of human souls.

Aquinas is in the midst of developing his philosophy of the “unmoved mover” (an eternally necessary existence, uniquely infinite in whatever properties it possesses).

You might accuse Aquinas of making an a priori argument at this point of his philosophy. We can discuss that, but I suggest it be done in a thread dedicated to this point. It really has nothing to do with the bodily resurrection.
 
thinkandmull said:
Ignatius;12829658:
thinkandmull;12810117:
WI read from Aquinas how it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Can you please point to the exact text (in context) where you get that idea?
From that link
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say Aquinas believes it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith.
Can you please *point to the exact text *(in context) where you get that idea?
 
Oh boy…

Thomas Aquinas:

The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

Therefore the resurrection of the body cannot be proven. And thus neither the immortality of the soul, because it is unfitting for the soul to exist forever with its body.

My point is that Aquinas made a theological error.
 
thinkandmull said:
Oh boy…

Thomas Aquinas:

The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

Therefore the resurrection of the body cannot be proven. And thus neither the immortality of the soul, because it is unfitting for the soul to exist forever with its body.

My point is that Aquinas made a theological error.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that by your application of Aquinas, God did not [could not have, actually] create[d] heaven and earth, because it cannot be proven demonstrably.

As far as I can tell however, just because a thing cannot be proven demonstrably–e.g.–an article of Faith–does not mean that it did not happen, or could not have happened (or could not be).

Hence even if the Res’n of the Body–along with the eternity of the soul–articles of faith–can not be proven demonstrably…doesn’t mean they can not happen. According to Aquinas; and elementary logic.

What am I missing here?
 
thinkandmull said:
For Catholics the body and the soul go together, therefore if we can know the immortality of the soul, we can know the resurrection of the body. But if the resurrection of the body is revealed truth, than Aquinas is wrong in saying revealed truth cannot be known by reason.
Click to expand...
As I see it, “The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively” =/= “revealed truth cannot be known by reason”.

Also,

X= “known only by revelation”;

and

“therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively”.

Are not mutually exclusive. Applied to your point about the Res’n of the Body [R/B] and the immortality of the soul *:

R/B & I/S = “known only by revelation”;

and

“therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively”.

=/=

Therefore R/B & I/S “cannot be known by reason” (or for that matter, cannot be).

(or, more specifically, therefore Aquinas erred).

****BTW, I’m not trying to be snarky here–I’m just toying with the pieces of the puzzle you’ve provided, trying to see what you’re seeing–and what I posted, is a depiction of what I’m seeing. *
 
thinkandmull said:
Ignatius;12831101:
thinkandmull;12829740:
Ignatius;12829658:
thinkandmull;12810117:
WI read from Aquinas how it is impossible to prove from reason matters of Faith.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Can you please point to the exact text (in context) where you get that idea?
From that link

Can you please point to the exact text (in context) where you get that idea?

Oh boy…
.
.
.
My point is that Aquinas made a theological error.
Click to expand...


That whole section of the Suma is about whether the Universe had a beginning.
 
The foundation of Aquinas’s first argument in that article is that reason cannot prove matters of faith because they are of things above us. He even says that the existence of God is not an article of faith. But the resurrection of the body is, therefore Aquinas doesn’t believe that can be known by reason

The point of the thread is, assuming Aquinas to be right, can we prove that our immortality as long as the resurrection of the body is not a logical correlate to it. Since the soul is not trapped in the body, I don’t think you can.

Therefore the soul’s immortality can possibly be proven by reason, and the body, therefore, as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top