Soul and resurrection?

[Bahman]

The Church does not commit to very many details. St. Augustine of Hippo, (De quantitate animae 1.2; 5.9) states that the soul has no spatial dimensions.

St. Thomas was a dualist, but not a materialist, and you have seen some of his teachings.

I believe there are just a few dogmas specifically on the soul:

defined

• Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul.
• The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body.
• Every human being possesses an individual soul.

certain

• Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God.

Thanks, but we know these things. I am simply looking for an opinion from church or you about the form/shape of soul after death. To me, soul cannot have any spatial shape after death.

 

[davidv]

Thanks, but we know these things. I am simply looking for an opinion from church or you about the form/shape of soul after death. To me, soul cannot have any spatial shape after death.

The soul is spiritual. It is not made of matter. As such it has no physical shape. Since it is not made of matter, it cannot have shape. Does this mean it cannot exist? Why?

 

[Bahman]

The soul is spiritual. It is not made of matter. As such it has no physical shape. Since it is not made of matter, it cannot have shape. Does this mean it cannot exist? Why?

According to church teaching soul is spiritual being and can have spatial shape (based on what Vico declared in this thread) since otherwise it cannot animate the body. Soul in your teaching is simply life which should exist everywhere which is alive. A shapeless soul can exist but then soul cannot have identity because all souls look like similar upon death.

 

[Vico]

According to church teaching soul is spiritual being and can have spatial shape (based on what Vico declared in this thread) since otherwise it cannot animate the body. Soul in your teaching is simply life which should exist everywhere which is alive. A shapeless soul can exist but then soul cannot have identity because all souls look like similar upon death.

Modern Catholic Dictionary has this from the topic soul:

The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form.

 

[Vico]

Thanks, but we know these things. I am simply looking for an opinion from church or you about the form/shape of soul after death. To me, soul cannot have any spatial shape after death.

We know from Church dogma that

• there is for each body an individual rational soul
• the soul may exist is in various states between bodily death and resurrection: heaven, purgatory, or hell.
• the soul and body are reunited at resurrection
• the bodies of the resurrected that are judged just are glorified

The following dogma of faith on the soul is from Denzinger - Sources of Catholic Dogma:

LATERAN COUNCIL V 1512-1517

Ecumenical XVIII (The Reform of the Church)

The Human Soul (against the Neo-Aristoteliars) *

[From the Bull “Apostolic) Regiminis” (Session VIII),Dec. 19, 1513]

738 Since in our days (and we painfully bring this up) the sower of cockle, ancient enemy of the human race, has dared to disseminate and advance in the field of the Lord a number of pernicious errors, always rejected by the faithful, especially concerning the nature of the rational soul, namely, that it is mortal, or one in all men, and some rashly philosophizing affirmed that this is true at least according to philosophy, in our desire to offer suitable remedies against a plague of this kind, with the approval of this holy Council, we condemn and reject all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, or is one in all men, and those who cast doubt on these truths, since it [the soul] is not only truly in itself and essentially the form of the human body, as was defined in the canon of Pope CLEMENT V our predecessor of happy memory published in the (yen eral) Council of VIENNE [n. 481] but it is also multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied. . . . And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare [see n. 1797] every assertion contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatize otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.​

Also, regarding place:

St. Pope John Paul II - Aug.4, 1999 general audience stated that purgatory was a state of being:
“The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.”
Pope Benedict XVI - Jan. 12, 2011 general audience stated,
“This is purgatory, an interior fire.”
catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=18&id=61890#sthash.RoQOkMhD.dpuf

 

[Vico]

Thanks, but we know these things. I am simply looking for an opinion from church or you about the form/shape of soul after death. To me, soul cannot have any spatial shape after death.

I will say no. Shape is a quality about dimensive quantity which is proper to body but not the spiritual. Two other related ideas are containment and that the soul is not the person but part of the person.

Also from St. Thomas Aquinas “Shape is a quality about quantity, since the notion of shape consists of fixing the bounds of magnitude.” - Sum.Th. Q78. A3.

He also covered thinking on angels and place. Angels are immortal pure spiritual beings. The human rational soul is spiritual.

I answer that, It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.

Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place; because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow containing it.

newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q75** The Resurrection **wrote:

Article 1. Whether there is to be a resurrection of the body?

**Objection 2. **Further, Our Lord proves the resurrection by quoting the words: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Matthew 22:32; Exodus 3:6). But it is clear that when those words were uttered, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived not in body, but only in the soul. Therefore there will be no resurrection of bodies but only of souls.

Reply to Objection 2. Abraham’s soul, properly speaking, is not Abraham himself, but a part of him (and the same as regards the others). Hence life in Abraham’s soul does not suffice to make Abraham a living being, or to make the God of Abraham the God of a living man. But there needs to be life in the whole composite, i.e. the soul and body: and although this life were not actually when these words were uttered, it was in each part as ordained to the resurrection. Wherefore our Lord proves the resurrection with the greatest subtlety and efficacy.

newadvent.org/summa/5075.htm

 

[Maddie26]

According to church teaching soul is spiritual being and can have spatial shape (based on what Vico declared in this thread) since otherwise it cannot animate the body. Soul in your teaching is simply life which should exist everywhere which is alive. A shapeless soul can exist but then soul cannot have identity because all souls look like similar upon death.

I can’t find where Vivo declared that the soul has a spatial shape. I think you declared that. Vivo provided a list of definitions of form since you were consistently unable to articulate what you meant.

Please quote where you proved that souls have a spatial shape. Simply to state something is not to prove it. If you believe the soul is physical matter then where is it?

According to Catholic teachings souls are distinct and individual and are marked by what was done while the person was alive. Baptism, for example, places a permanent mark on the soul.

Souls do not need physical shapes to be identified one from another. Even in the physical world two people may look identical and yet be very different.

 

[GEddie]

Please quote where you proved that souls have a spatial shape. Simply to state something is not to prove it. If you believe the soul is physical matter then where is it?

I don’t think Bahman makes any such claim. Particularly in post 80, he seems to hold to the opposite.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Maddie26]

I have shown. Again, the interaction has to be local since there is nothing between soul and body to let them interact. Local interaction requires that soul has a shape.

.It was mainly in OP but this is a discussion so for now everything should be clear as it was stated in my last argument,

Soul is form of body simply means that soul is life and has spatial shape in order to inform body. The conclusion is what follows from what is stated, namely the soul doesn’t have any spatial shape upon death

. Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv 
My opinion, like yours, is of no consequence, unless it is backed up with evidence and sound logic.
Bahman:
I provided a sound logic.

Quote:
In simple word, soul is life and need to have spatial form in order to inform body hence it could not have any spatial form after death.

Bachman seems to think he has proven it beyond the need to restate it.

 

[Maddie26]

I don’t think Bahman makes any such claim. Particularly in post 80, he seems to hold to the opposite.

ICXC NIKA

I believe he is saying that the soul has physical form during life, having read that the soul is the form of the body. Earlier he states that it is A form of body. Upon death, the soul loses its physical form and therefore all souls are indistinguishable and therefore the concept of resurrection is flawed. The difference in the soul before and after death is the point of this discussion and in post 80 he is talking about after death.

 

[Bahman]

Modern Catholic Dictionary has this from the topic soul:

The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form.

What do you mean with accidents?

 

[Bahman]

…the soul may exist is in various states between bodily death and resurrection: heaven, purgatory, or hell…

How soul could exist in various states when it does not have a body to act upon?

 

[Bahman]

I will say no. Shape is a quality about dimensive quantity which is proper to body but not the spiritual. Two other related ideas are containment and that the soul is not the person but part of the person.

Also from St. Thomas Aquinas “Shape is a quality about quantity, since the notion of shape consists of fixing the bounds of magnitude.” - Sum.Th. Q78. A3.

He also covered thinking on angels and place. Angels are immortal pure spiritual beings. The human rational soul is spiritual.

I answer that, It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.

Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place; because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow containing it.

newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q75** The Resurrection **wrote:

Article 1. Whether there is to be a resurrection of the body?

**Objection 2. **Further, Our Lord proves the resurrection by quoting the words: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Matthew 22:32; Exodus 3:6). But it is clear that when those words were uttered, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived not in body, but only in the soul. Therefore there will be no resurrection of bodies but only of souls.

Reply to Objection 2. Abraham’s soul, properly speaking, is not Abraham himself, but a part of him (and the same as regards the others). Hence life in Abraham’s soul does not suffice to make Abraham a living being, or to make the God of Abraham the God of a living man. But there needs to be life in the whole composite, i.e. the soul and body: and although this life were not actually when these words were uttered, it was in each part as ordained to the resurrection. Wherefore our Lord proves the resurrection with the greatest subtlety and efficacy.

newadvent.org/summa/5075.htm

So soul doesn’t have any spatial shape either when person is alive?

 

[Bahman]

I can’t find where Vivo declared that the soul has a spatial shape. I think you declared that. Vivo provided a list of definitions of form since you were consistently unable to articulate what you meant.

Please quote where you proved that souls have a spatial shape. Simply to state something is not to prove it. If you believe the soul is physical matter then where is it?

According to Catholic teachings souls are distinct and individual and are marked by what was done while the person was alive. Baptism, for example, places a permanent mark on the soul.

Souls do not need physical shapes to be identified one from another. Even in the physical world two people may look identical and yet be very different.

Please read post #64.

 

[Bahman]

Bachman seems to think he has proven it beyond the need to restate it.

We are dealing with a problem here. You seems to believe that soul dose not have any shape at all even when the person is alive. You then need to provide an argument that how a shapeless thing, soul, can inform body to perform an action.

 

[Bahman]

I believe he is saying that the soul has physical form during life, having read that the soul is the form of the body. Earlier he states that it is A form of body. Upon death, the soul loses its physical form and therefore all souls are indistinguishable and therefore the concept of resurrection is flawed. The difference in the soul before and after death is the point of this discussion and in post 80 he is talking about after death.

My point is whether soul has a shape or not when person is alive, it is shapeless upon death hence all souls are indistinguishable after death therefore the concept of resurrection is flawed.

 

[Maddie26]

What was your proof that the soul has physical shape? I couldn’t find it.

Yes, I believe that the soul does not have physical shape. I take proof for this from the fact that anatomists, surgeons and coroners have yet to find anything that corresponds to a soul. Every part of the body that is there in life is there in death. Therefore the soul, if it exists, is not a physical part of the body. And if it has a physical shape and matter then where is it? There are various theories I have read about the soul being the intellect, but as a Catholic I choose to believe that the soul is the spiritual part of a person, that part that is most individual and receives marks as from sin, baptism etc. as I have stated elsewhere.

Since I believe that the soul has no shape during life, it retains its lack of shape after death, while also retaining its distinguishing, spiritual marks that identify it. I do not believe that shapeless means indistinguishable. Shape is proper to material things and is how physical creatures identify one another. If souls are not by their nature physical then might it not follow that the distinguishing features particular to that kind of organism are different from physical creatures?

If two people (twins) look alike, what is it that makes them different people? I believe it is their souls. Just as their souls are distinct to us in life, they will be distinct after they are separated from the body.

I believe that the soul, as a non physical entity, informs the body in a special way because part of the quality of life in human beings is to have a soul. Is it the presence of the soul that gives life to the body? Or personality? I don’t know. The Bible does speak of God judging souls. Since I believe the Bible, I therefore believe that souls are distinguishable after death otherwise it would be impossible to judge them.

 

[Vico]

What do you mean with accidents?

Modern Catholic Dictionary:
ACCIDENTS. Things whose essence naturally requires that they exist in another being. Accidents are also called the appearances, species, or properties of a thing. These may be either physical, such as quantity, or modal, such as size or shape. Supernaturally, accidents can exist, in the absence of their natural substance, as happens with the physical properties of bread and wine after Eucharistic consecration.

ESSENCE. What a thing is. The internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. Sometimes essence is said to be the same thing as being, but being merely, affirming that a thing is, without specifying its perfections. Essence is not quite the same as nature, which adds to essence the notion of activity, i.e., nature is the essence in action. Or again essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. (Etym. Latin essentia, essence, being.)

FORM. The nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being.

Summa theologica, part 1, question 76, art. 8 has: (Same source and section as post #64 – referring to whiteness.)

But a form which requires variety in the parts, such as a soul, and specially the soul of perfect animals, is not equally related to the whole and the parts: hence it is not divided accidentally when the whole is divided. So therefore quantitative totality cannot be attributed to the soul, either essentially or accidentally. But the second kind of totality, which depends on logical and essential perfection, properly and essentially belongs to forms: and likewise the virtual totality, because a form is the principle of operation.

 

[Bahman]

What was your proof that the soul has physical shape? I couldn’t find it.

This is not subject of this thread so lets move on otherwise you need to define soul for me.

Yes, I believe that the soul does not have physical shape. I take proof for this from the fact that anatomists, surgeons and coroners have yet to find anything that corresponds to a soul. Every part of the body that is there in life is there in death. Therefore the soul, if it exists, is not a physical part of the body. And if it has a physical shape and matter then where is it? There are various theories I have read about the soul being the intellect, but as a Catholic I choose to believe that the soul is the spiritual part of a person, that part that is most individual and receives marks as from sin, baptism etc. as I have stated elsewhere.

You believe that soul is shapeless so how it could marked due to sin or baptism? This is key question since a shapeless thing cannot change.

Since I believe that the soul has no shape during life, it retains its lack of shape after death, while also retaining its distinguishing, spiritual marks that identify it. I do not believe that shapeless means indistinguishable. Shape is proper to material things and is how physical creatures identify one another. If souls are not by their nature physical then might it not follow that the distinguishing features particular to that kind of organism are different from physical creatures?

How a shapeless thing could get mark and be distinguishable? Shapeless thing cannot change.

I believe that the soul, as a non physical entity, informs the body in a special way because part of the quality of life in human beings is to have a soul. Is it the presence of the soul that gives life to the body? Or personality? I don’t know. The Bible does speak of God judging souls. Since I believe the Bible, I therefore believe that souls are distinguishable after death otherwise it would be impossible to judge them.

You need to provide an argument to show that two shapeless things could be distinguishable so they could be judged. It is evident for me that they cannot be shapeless and distinguishable at the same time.

 

[Vico]

So soul doesn’t have any spatial shape either when person is alive?

See post #97.