Talking about self and Heaven outside of time is a house of cards

[JoyintheCross]

Now, I do have a learning disability, so I’m not sure I’m following this argument 100% correctly, but I do not think we can equate the beatific vision with anything such as the buddhist/hindu concept of being absorbed into the divinity. Actually, I think that theory sounds terrible.

Now whatever it means to be human, God created us so. So, I do believe that we do retain our humanity, and we will still have a love for all of creation as God loves all of creation. Theologians teach that we will have pleasures of sense (proper to a glorified body), as an accidental beatitude in addition to the essential beatitude (the beatific vision), as we are destined after the Last Day to live in a restored earth in a renewed universe called the New Heavens and New Earth in our glorified bodies.

There seems to be this idea that we will be so absorbed in the beatific vision that we are in this ecstatic state of motionless going ooh, ahh for all eternity.

I think some errors have to do with misinterpretations of certain works of art, which displays saints and/or angels, either sitting or kneeling in stone cold stances around a representation of the Divinity. But these artworks are only representations of deeper realities, if I explained that right.

I think these ‘misinterpretations’ might have something to do with the opinions of many that feel Heaven to be boring.

Fr. F.J. Boudreau, in his book called The Happiness of Heaven warns us against two serious errors in our views of Heaven. The first view comes from mainly protestants, putting too much emphasis on the pleasures of the senses. “the Beatific Vision is either entirely ignored, or, if mentioned at all, it is explained so as to mean next to nothing; at hast, it does not appear to add anything to the exquisite happiness already enjoyed in creatures. In their view heaven is really nothing more than a natural beatitude, such as might leave been enjoyed even in this world, if Adam had not sinned.” Link for book below

Also, from Fr. Boudreau,
“The second error to be avoided consists in placing the whole happiness of man so completely and exclusively in the Beatific Vision, that neither the resurrection of the body with its glorious gifts, nor the communion of saints, nor heavenly music, nor any other creature, can increase the happiness already enjoyed by the soul in the possession of God. In this extreme and exclusive view of the Beatific Vision, man is so completely
absorbed in God, and so perfectly happy in Him, that the whole creation is to him as if it were not; and if he were the only man ever created, or the only one in heaven, his joys would be precisely the same as they are, now that he is surrounded with angels, saints, and other creatures of God. They who hold such extreme views may be very holy persons; but their opinions are far from being in accordance with sound theology. They remind us of those unskilful guides who taught St. Theresa that, in order to reach the most perfect contemplation in this world, we must raise our minds so completely above every creature, “that although it should be even the humanity of Christ, it is still some impediment for those who have advanced so far in spirituality, and that it hinders them from applying to the most perfect contemplation.” It is almost needless to add that she soon discovered this to be a very dangerous error, and, as may be seen in the twenty-second chapter of her life, she expresses the deepest regret for having, even for a moment, entertained such an opinion.” Link for book below

As you can see, even St. Theresa recognized the senselessness of this second error.

Anyone who is interested in the subject of Heaven should read this book: The Happiness of Heaven by Fr. F.J. Boudreau. It was even given imprimateur status, as I am pretty cautious about reading stuff by theologians if its not imprimateur. This book might help clear up some serious misconceptions.
Link for the book (legally free): gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25224/pg25224.html

Another source of food for thought, just look up what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the New Heavens and New Earth.

 

[Nihilist]

Now, I do have a learning disability, so I’m not sure I’m following this argument 100% correctly, but I do not think we can equate the beatific vision with anything such as the buddhist/hindu concept of being absorbed into the divinity. Actually, I think that theory sounds terrible.

Now whatever it means to be human, God created us so. So, I do believe that we do retain our humanity, and we will still have a love for all of creation as God loves all of creation. Theologians teach that we will have pleasures of sense (proper to a glorified body), as an accidental beatitude in addition to the essential beatitude (the beatific vision), as we are destined after the Last Day to live in a restored earth in a renewed universe called the New Heavens and New Earth in our glorified bodies.

There seems to be this idea that we will be so absorbed in the beatific vision that we are in this ecstatic state of motionless going ooh, ahh for all eternity.

I think some errors have to do with misinterpretations of certain works of art, which displays saints and/or angels, either sitting or kneeling in stone cold stances around a representation of the Divinity. But these artworks are only representations of deeper realities, if I explained that right.

I think these ‘misinterpretations’ might have something to do with the opinions of many that feel Heaven to be boring.

Fr. F.J. Boudreau, in his book called The Happiness of Heaven warns us against two serious errors in our views of Heaven. The first view comes from mainly protestants, putting too much emphasis on the pleasures of the senses. “the Beatific Vision is either entirely ignored, or, if mentioned at all, it is explained so as to mean next to nothing; at hast, it does not appear to add anything to the exquisite happiness already enjoyed in creatures. In their view heaven is really nothing more than a natural beatitude, such as might leave been enjoyed even in this world, if Adam had not sinned.” Link for book below

Also, from Fr. Boudreau,
“The second error to be avoided consists in placing the whole happiness of man so completely and exclusively in the Beatific Vision, that neither the resurrection of the body with its glorious gifts, nor the communion of saints, nor heavenly music, nor any other creature, can increase the happiness already enjoyed by the soul in the possession of God. In this extreme and exclusive view of the Beatific Vision, man is so completely
absorbed in God, and so perfectly happy in Him, that the whole creation is to him as if it were not; and if he were the only man ever created, or the only one in heaven, his joys would be precisely the same as they are, now that he is surrounded with angels, saints, and other creatures of God. They who hold such extreme views may be very holy persons; but their opinions are far from being in accordance with sound theology. They remind us of those unskilful guides who taught St. Theresa that, in order to reach the most perfect contemplation in this world, we must raise our minds so completely above every creature, “that although it should be even the humanity of Christ, it is still some impediment for those who have advanced so far in spirituality, and that it hinders them from applying to the most perfect contemplation.” It is almost needless to add that she soon discovered this to be a very dangerous error, and, as may be seen in the twenty-second chapter of her life, she expresses the deepest regret for having, even for a moment, entertained such an opinion.” Link for book below

As you can see, even St. Theresa recognized the senselessness of this second error.

Anyone who is interested in the subject of Heaven should read this book: The Happiness of Heaven by Fr. F.J. Boudreau. It was even given imprimateur status, as I am pretty cautious about reading stuff by theologians if its not imprimateur. This book might help clear up some serious misconceptions.
Link for the book (legally free): gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25224/pg25224.html

Another source of food for thought, just look up what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the New Heavens and New Earth.

A lot of the mystics talk about the anhilation of the individual consciousness into God- John of the Cross, Ekhart, Gertrude the Great. It is actually a point upon which Christian mysticism and science agree- the thing which we call ‘personality’ (memory, volition, etc.) do not, indeed, cannot, survive. But the soul- the real essence, which is, in itself of God, is re-united with God. The real ‘you’ (the soul) is not the ‘personality’ or ‘brain’.

A better way of seeing it is that the talking about ‘personal survival’ is just an image. The reality (like everything about God), is wholly beyond.

 

[JoyintheCross]

A lot of the mystics talk about the anhilation of the individual consciousness into God- John of the Cross, Ekhart, Gertrude the Great. It is actually a point upon which Christian mysticism and science agree- the thing which we call ‘personality’ (memory, volition, etc.) do not, indeed, cannot, survive. But the soul- the real essence, which is, in itself of God, is re-united with God. The real ‘you’ (the soul) is not the ‘personality’ or ‘brain’.

A better way of seeing it is that the talking about ‘personal survival’ is just an image. The reality (like everything about God), is wholly beyond.

Well, as for memory, we will remember our life on earth, much of which pertains to our salvation. For example, in Heaven, we will remember the temptations in life from which we were saved by God’s grace. In Hell, we will remember those choices we made that separated us from God forever. So I cannot say that the memory is annihilated.

I can though sort of see the point with the soul, but can’t see the argument as pertaining to the resurrection of the body.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I think it’s somewhat inaccurate to say that the personality and mind are in some way separate from the soul. If anything, those two things are the manifestation of the human soul in the physical world, connected to one’s body through the brain. To separate one’s mental essence from ones spiritual essence is misleading, at least to me, as I consider our minds to be the conscious manifestation of our souls.

Likewise, JoyintheCross brought up the very good point (with sources too, so kudos), that to paint Heaven as being so overwhelming with the Beatific Vision as to cause us to “forget” ourselves and the rest of creation isn’t inclusive of all of the other things that make Heaven what it is. Granted we can’t imagine what that is, much less comprehend it, but to me, forgetting what and who we are and all the people we loved in this life is the opposite of the Beatific Vision as a whole. God loves each and every one of us simultaneously, and knows all, and does all these other things at the same point or as the same existence or what have you. As a result I don’t see why it’s so far fetched that we couldn’t share in the Beatific Vision while also experiencing Heaven and creation to the fullest of our glorified senses.

I find that it makes more sense to say that, because of the Beatific Vision and because of our collective communion with God (and each other for that matter), we would naturally also experience our eternal life and share the good parts of our personalities and all be able to appreciate the gifts that make us the individuals we are in each other, just as God does. In other words, our being in a perfect unchanging (read either constantly growing or never decreasing) communion with God is what enables us to eternally find awe in the wonders of God’s creation and in the personalities that our souls manifest. While they are imperfect in this life, our souls were not designed for a mortal life of suffering and struggle and death. That was a consequence we brought upon ourselves. Heaven is, in a way, God returning to us the fullness of the life we threw away in choosing sin over Him, not taking the good He graced us with in this life away in exchange for eternally just “being happy and with God”. Btw quotes are all my own words, not paraphrasing anything anyone else brought up.

I have more but I’m on my phone and would rather type the rest.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Expanding on all that, it wouldn’t make sense that our personalities/individuality is removed in Heaven, as God and the angels and Saints (and saints) are all individual, but in communion. After all, we were designed in the image and likeness of God, who has a personality, but not as a mirror image copy of God.

Also, if you separate the body from the soul in a… semantic? sense, then it would follow that the soul does not have it’s former personality, since the biological aspects of our personality at least derive from our brain and from the associated chemical processes. However, our body is NOT separate from our soul, or if it is, they are not separate parts of our “selves”. As human beings, we are the union of a body and a soul. The two are separated at death, but the two are not separate, hence the belief in God glorifying our bodies like the Resurrection. Our body is not just the physical vessel through which our souls interact with the world. Our bodies are just that. OUR bodies. They are an integral part of our identity. It helps if one visualizes the senses not as a process by our bodies to interpret stimuli, though they do that, but as the way our souls experience the Creation around it. The soul experiences this creation through our bodies, and our bodies are ours because of our souls. It gets a bit circular, but really a circle is the only way to understand it, as the two are linked in a mystical way that only God can truly comprehend, as He formed us in the first place.

Also worth noting, is that within time, we can only experience one thing at a time. Or at least only focus on one experience at a time. While it is logical to say that apart from time, we would not experience anything, it is equally logical to say that we could potentially experience any number of things. However, even our intellect in Heaven is not infinite. Thus no matter how much we can potentially experience in Heaven, we will never be able to experience everything simultaneously. My conclusion is that in Heaven, we are continually/forever/eternally/simultaneously in a way experiencing God’s Love and all of Creation, but since we cannot omnisciently experience infinity, even in Heaven, we are instead eternally and increasingly experiencing more and more and more of God’s love and glory. I envision it not unlike a fractal. No matter how far you zoom in, even if you were to zoom in forever, there is always more complexity. Likewise, no matter how long you are in Heaven experiencing God’s glory and love and so on, there is always even more to experience.

I don’t think saying Heaven and eternity are without change is entirely accurate, as you are defining “change,” Nihilist. In that sense, we would be permanently in the same state of the Beatific Vision, either as some kind of complete “fullness” or otherwise unchanging completeness. Nothing more to know, or become, or understand, or see, etc. I would say that the state of our soul does not change, in that we will never choose to sin in Heaven, we will never one day get bored of loving God or being there, but that we would experience change in the form of growth and deeper understanding and deeper love for and from God. God’s love is described as a spring that never runs dry, and as something that one can return to and drink from again and again without ever even managing to scratch the surface.

You could pick up a leaf and admire it for the shape it has. Just a leaf. But looking closer shows that it has a stem and veins and the flat parts of the leaf. The curves it has where the main body of the leaf meets the veins, where the veins meet the stem. Deeper still will show you the parts of the leaf that open and close to let it vent water. Chloroplasts. The plants cells. The components of the chloroplast. The molecules that make up the organelles inside the cells. The atoms that make up the molecules, each an individual “species” of atom, if you will. Further still, the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up one single atom. And that’s as far as my molecular knowledge goes, but I’m pretty sure quarks fit into that somewhere, and to my knowledge, that’s as far as our technology can currently take us. That doesn’t necessarily even mean that those are the smallest layers of existence, just the slowest we can measure. If God is the type of Creator to put that much detail into a single leaf belonging to one individual plant, I can’t accept the idea that Heaven would be any less complex, and frankly, it makes more sense to me that it would be more complex. Like a fractal. Constantly learning more, experiencing more, “spending time with” people more, loving God more, being loved by God more, so on and so forth, not necessarily forever so much as without end. Not changing in that you will never love God less, or be loved less, or experience less, or understand less.

 

[rinnie]

As Pope Benedict XVI said in Spe Salvi: eternal life “would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time – the before and after – no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed with joy” (Enc. Spe Salvi, 12).

So my challenge is: how can we make sense out of my initial post questions in a realm where there is “no before or after”?

In what way can we understand that experience as being discernibly different from being in a coma with an electrical implant permanently triggering our neural pleasure centers? (No awareness of self, only bliss, etc., etc.)

He explains that eternal life is a completion of life.

In this life we have suffering, but in that suffering we have Hope, Hope is what makes the suffering okay, Knowing that in the eternal life, you will never have the suffering, it will no longer exist.

Time will be no more in eternity. In eternity there is no death, no after death to wonder about. Eternity is the happy every after for those who have eternal life in Christ.

The sufferings you had in this world are gone, they don’t matter anymore. There is a new eternal life full of no suffering. Nothing but such a great joy and happiness you could not even imagine in this world.

Its like the pain a women has in childbirth, it is forgotten when the Child is in the world. It no longer becomes this great pain as time goes by, as we get older we see child birth as the happiest day of our life. Although we remember pain, we truly forget the extend of that pain.

Its kind of like that in heaven, you forget or don’t care about the suffering in this world, like a women is so involved in the holding and love of that child in her arms and the pain is long forgotten, that is how heaven is.

The world we live in today is no more, is long forgotten, it is the eternal life and happiness in the new unending eternal world we are now apart of.

That is what St Paul speaks of, when you have hope and knowledge of God in this world no one can keep you a prisoner or captive any longer. Before Christ that was not possible. It is he who freed us all as slaves in our mind, and who loves us no matter who we are to others.

Kind of the saying you can do anything you want to my body, you can own me as a slave, but in my mind I am not slave to you or anyone. I belong to God and God has set me free.

And it is that equal ground, life of being loved and set free that we have in heaven. What we were or how much we had, or power, or fame is not an issue in heaven. You don’t have that in heaven.

Kind of how Elvis to some was treated better, and loved more by this world, then us, In the next world we are all Elvis.

 

[thinkandmull]

How can it be held that the soul is outside time while we are on earth? Has anyone any proof of this?

I borrowed the Summa from the library, but had to give it back. I’ll get it again latter this month, but in my notebook I have a this note: pg 349 “the teaching of Augustine… that angelic nature…precedes time, even with the succession of concepts and affections in the angelic mind. But movement without time cannot be conceived.” Thus Aquinas concludes that there is a type of time in angels, but “the time of the movement of angels is not our time”. Is this real; can a distinction really be made between our time and angels time? And will not we be essentially in angels’ time when in heaven?

Assuming we get there of course. I’ve had some nightmares lately that everyone goes to hell when they die because good feelings are based on the respiratory system; can anyone help me understand how it is possible to go to heaven without breathing??

 

[Kurisu35712]

How can it be held that the soul is outside time while we are on earth? Has anyone any proof of this?

I borrowed the Summa from the library, but had to give it back. I’ll get it again latter this month, but in my notebook I have a this note: pg 349 “the teaching of Augustine… that angelic nature…precedes time, even with the succession of concepts and affections in the angelic mind. But movement without time cannot be conceived.” Thus Aquinas concludes that there is a type of time in angels, but “the time of the movement of angels is not our time”. Is this real; can a distinction really be made between our time and angels time? And will not we be essentially in angels’ time when in heaven?

Assuming we get there of course. I’ve had some nightmares lately that everyone goes to hell when they die because good feelings are based on the respiratory system; can anyone help me understand how it is possible to go to heaven without breathing??

My understanding is that the reason we are able to essentially change the destination of our souls in this life is precisely BECAUSE they are inside of time. And that while time does not exist in the afterlife, it isn’t a static state of existence. Angels aren’t constrained or contained in time as we understand it, but that isn’t to say that they just exist like a photograph, which is what complete lack of time would imply. I would say that Heaven time is more like the perfection of time, rather than the lack of it. I think I mentioned it earlier, about Heaven being a state of permanent growth in love and communion with God (and each other) and a permanent growth in understanding, which would make sense in reference to angels. Likewise, if the Saints in Heaven are capable of praying for us, it doesn’t make any sense to say that there is no time or sense of event in Heaven, since praying for someone requires knowledge of their current situation. I usually phrase it as Heaven is above time, since God and the angels and saints are able to affect us, who are in time.

Pretty sure no one goes to Hell for breathing. I wouldn’t put any stock in condemnation by oxygen intake. Plus, if anything I’d think good feelings would be based on the endocrine or nervous system.

In all seriousness though, don’t stop breathing. :yawn:

 

[glendab]

Hello Thinkandmull.

How can it be held that the soul is outside time while we are on earth? Has anyone any proof of this?

I borrowed the Summa from the library, but had to give it back. I’ll get it again latter this month, but in my notebook I have a this note: pg 349 “the teaching of Augustine… that angelic nature…precedes time, even with the succession of concepts and affections in the angelic mind. But movement without time cannot be conceived.” Thus Aquinas concludes that there is a type of time in angels, but “the time of the movement of angels is not our time”. Is this real; can a distinction really be made between our time and angels time? And will not we be essentially in angels’ time when in heaven?

Assuming we get there of course. I’ve had some nightmares lately that everyone goes to hell when they die because good feelings are based on the respiratory system; can anyone help me understand how it is possible to go to heaven without breathing??

Here is a link to the Summa on-line. Enjoy. The advantage is you never have to worry about getting the book back on time. Happy studies.

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm

Glenda

P.S. Your question about angels could be better thought about if you consider angels assigned to places like cathedrals and such. Their “time” there is limited to the existence of the cathedral and the Consecration sort of “assigns” them to that place. Time is also understood differently at different times in one’s own life. For instance, you a child of three a day can seem like an eternity, but to a man of 70 a day is over in a wink. You could make a whole thread about this subject.

 

[Kurisu35712]

P.S. Your question about angels could be better thought about if you consider angels assigned to places like cathedrals and such. Their “time” there is limited to the existence of the cathedral and the Consecration sort of “assigns” them to that place. Time is also understood differently at different times in one’s own life. For instance, you a child of three a day can seem like an eternity, but to a man of 70 a day is over in a wink. You could make a whole thread about this subject.

Anyone want to claim that topic? That’d definitely be one I subscribe to!

 

[oldcelt]

Virtually everything I have read is baseless speculation. Sorry folks, but none of us know the composition of the afterlife. The majority of the descriptions I have read sound very much like non-existence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From what Frank Sheed has said in Theology For Beginners, the human intellect in heaven does not have concepts or ideas of its own in heaven.

On earth, our intellect first forms ideas and then looks at these concepts as different from ourselves. It is the process we have in knowing something: intellect, idea, consideration. The idea is separate from the intellect.

But in heaven we don’t have any concepts of our own, but see God as our concept directly. There is nothing, not ideas, between God and ourselves…no thoughts. This is a different knowledge than we have ever experienced before.

When we “see” God, we will know everything in so far as we can, having a limited intellect in grace.

To me this would seem to answer your question.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

And I would say Frank is absolutley wrong. We will keep our own individual human natures in heaven, just like Christ did. You are confusing our thought processes with the Beatific Vision. They are two different things. The Beatific Vision does not destroy our individual human personalities.

God Bless
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I deny that we can grasp any meaningful idea behind the words when we talk about eternal bliss and timeless being and so on. If one thought no longer comes before or after another, our thinking would be so radically different that it seems like an empty placeholder to say that would still be “you” or “me” in any meaningful way.

You are speculating. Where did you get these ideas?

What is more, how could we “remember” our life on earth as having come before our (then present) state in Heaven? So no meaningful conception of “memory” being “ours” from our earthly life - again suggesting that it would no longer be “us.”

Why not? There is no reason to suggest we will not remember our past life. We will certainly remember it at the last judgement. Again, you are speculating.

If we are not moving through linear time, how can we say we are experiencing justice for things we have already done rather than saying we are being rewarded or punished for things we have not even done yet?

Speculation.

Given the exponential changes to our minds, hearts, and ways of “thinking”, how can we even make sense of saying it is the same person who experiences the afterlife as lived the earthly life? So how can we say we are being rewarded or punished for things WE did or didn’t do?

Speculation.

Please don’t reply by offering other houses of cards from you or from famous authors. I know there are plenty of sentences that could be dug up or strung together. What I am after is a way we can imagine something concrete or meaningfully analogous to the claims.

We know very little about what life in heaven will be like. Why build up imagined problems by speculating. Believe what the Church says and don’t trouble yourself about things which can’t be known.

The Catechism discusses our life in heaven in paragraphs 1023-1029. Not much there, and none of the things you suggest.

Linus2nd

 

[Neoplatonist]

There is also no discussion, to my recollection, in the Catechism about square circles. Does that mean we are not able to reflect on the fact that claims about their geometric properties are logically unstable?

Yes, I have extended a working hypothesis. Saying it might turn out false in some way is not the same as showing that it turns out false.

If I say “x is a contradiction”, responding by saying, in effect, “in some parallel universe it might not be, you can’t know, so you can’t say it’s a contradiction” is a variant of the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You have yet to address the central question, which some of the others have attempted to do: can you explain how we could remember that certain images in our mind were things we did in the past if we have no awareness of past and present? If you can, I am sincerely curious to hear it.

Similarly, can you offer a method of how we would still be “us” if all our memories were erased every day? You might offer something like our individual character, but would that allow us to be conscious of our self-identity, or would it be more like purely subconscious programs running in the background? Again, I admit, I am skeptical.

Please keep in mind, my claim was not that we couldn’t possibly make sense of such things in some future condition. My claim is that we can’t seem to do in our present condition—any of us: popes or Church Fathers included. They can speculate with card-houses, but that’s not the same as ironing out the concrete issues I’ve presented.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is also no discussion, to my recollection, in the Catechism about square circles. Does that mean we are not able to reflect on the fact that claims about their geometric properties are logically unstable?

Speculation gets us no where, we do not direct our lives on a speculative basis, we direct it based on truth.

Yes, I have extended a working hypothesis. Saying it might turn out false in some way is not the same as showing that it turns out false.

A hypothesis must be based on something true. You have not presented any truth upon which to base your hypothesis. And even if you did, we do not base our spiritual lives on hypothesis but on the word of God.

If I say “x is a contradiction”, responding by saying, in effect, “in some parallel universe it might not be, you can’t know, so you can’t say it’s a contradiction” is a variant of the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are upping the anti. We do not live in a parallel universe. What happens there, if there is one, means nothing to us.

You have yet to address the central question, which some of the others have attempted to do: can you explain how we could remember that certain images in our mind were things we did in the past if we have no awareness of past and present? If you can, I am sincerely curious to hear it.

Those past things are retained by the intellect which is a power of the soul. There is no reason to think we loose our memory at death. That would be like saying God will punish us or reward us based on acts of which we have no memory. I might add that, you have given no reason to suppose we loose our memory at death. How do you know, for instance, that we will have no awareness of past and present? We will be immortal. That does not mean we have lost our memory of the past.

You have given no factual basis for assuming we will loose our self awareness.

Similarly, can you offer a method of how we would still be “us” if all our memories were erased every day? You might offer something like our individual character, but would that allow us to be conscious of our self-identity, or would it be more like purely subconscious programs running in the background? Again, I admit, I am skeptical.

It is your speculation that we will have no memory of the past. So it is up to you to prove this. Since the teaching of the Church is silent on such speculations, we must assume that our self awarness will be the same after death as it is now. I don’t see a problem.

Please keep in mind, my claim was not that we couldn’t possibly make sense of such things in some future condition. My claim is that we can’t seem to do in our present condition—any of us: popes or Church Fathers included. They can speculate with card-houses, but that’s not the same as ironing out the concrete issues I’ve presented.

You are the one who is speculating. The Church gives us what the Holy Spirit gives it. It is dangerous to go further.

God Bless
Linus2nd