Where Is Heaven and Hell? Is It In Our Universe?

[hazcompat]

My best response would be Their bodies exist in “no time”. Where God is seen face to face. The experience of which is best described as deep peace and joy beyond all joy in a timeless eternity. You can have a foretaste of this beatitude in the Sacraments and in prayer.

Peace

 

[Hope1960]

Do you mean in another dimension?

 

[Hope1960]

Like in another dimension?

 

[Hope1960]

Oh, please just stop.

 

[hazcompat]

No, but I understand why one might perceive it that way. Time is created, “no time” is uncreated. Acts 17:28 “For in Him we live and move and have our being.” Heaven is very close to us. I am often amazed at how close when at mass. Especially at the consecration.

Peace

 

[Vico]

Do you mean in another dimension?

Could be. There is mentioned in scripture: heaven, heaven’s heaven, and third heaven.

 

[Benadam]

They may not even be in a “place” if glorified bodies do not have to possess the physical property of extension.

BlackFriar, I’m kinda thinking some extension is necessary for the body to even exist. Could that be right?

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t believe so, Jesus walking through walls and such.
The scholastics do not believe so either from memory.

Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist afterall.

 

[AlNg]

Hell is in the middle of the earth

I didn’t know that hell was there. But since you say it is true, I find that interesting because after a while the internal fire of the earth will die out and be cold. So since hell is in the middle of the earth that means that the fire of hell will die out and be cold.

 

[BlackFriar]

I believe the Psalmist is simply waxing lyrical on the assumed science of his day…that the Empyrean sphere of God lies beyond the orbit of the most distant planet.
That cosmology died with Galileo and the invention of the telescope which proved the rings of Saturn and its moons and the imperfections of the planets which this cosmology and Churchmen considered impossible. Heaven is no longer to be considered a simple location or place in the material cosmos. The music of the spheres tolled its last chime 5 centuries ago.

 

[Vico]

I believe the Psalmist is simply waxing lyrical on the assumed science of his day…that the Empyrean sphere of God lies beyond the orbit of the most distant planet.
That cosmology died with Galileo and the invention of the telescope which proved the rings of Saturn and its moons and the imperfections of the planets which this cosmology and Churchmen considered impossible. Heaven is no longer to be considered a simple location or place in the material cosmos. The music of the spheres tolled its last chime 5 centuries ago.

This seems logical, although the Greek based spheres were not adopted until about 500 BCE. The Psalm uses two words that are mutually exclusive: haš·šā·ma·yim (the heavens) and hā·’ā·reṣ (earth).

 

[Gorgias]

This is getting pedantic, it is what it is.

I agree. You just can’t let it go.

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

Because it’s a statement about science, not theology.

Yes it seems to involve both as does The Annunciation, The Virgin Birth, The Empty Tomb, Jesus’s miracles etc.

No… you’re making an assertion about how the biology of reproduction works for each one of us, all the time, naturally. These other examples you raise as ‘proof’ are miraculous “one-time only” interventions that God made in the world. Apples and oranges, my friend…

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

I’m not saying it’s in the soul.

Well if none of its causality is in either the soul or in the body then it seems there is nothing left of “human nature” for it to be in for most people I suggest.

You just keep trying to say it’s “either body or soul”. Think of it this way: if I said “it’s in the cake”, would you therefore conclude “it must be in the eggs”? Or, “if not in the eggs, then you’re saying it must be in the flour”? You’re arguing for ingredients; I’m saying “no” to your assertions. I don’t think I can make it any plainer than that…

Gorgias:

Copulation is a bodily act. Does copulation – itself, and alone – create an ensouled human person?

Yes the act of generation communicates concupiscence to all men through the biological matter.
When this expression was composed the presence of a human soul was not assumed as necessary.
It therefore seems it is not relevant to the truth stated.

Wait – are you really hanging your hat on the claim that, “since they didn’t know biology back then, the claims that depend on (subsequently discredited) biology are still valid, since the bad biology is irrelevant”?!?
Aquinas claimed that the active generative force (male semen) embedded itself in the passive generative force (female menstrual blood) and thereby created human life. (Which, by the way, didn’t really take root until it ‘quickened’.)
Now, by your standards, since the biology of the time accepted this take on things, we should believe Aquinas in this matter, right? It’s the logical conclusion of your claim, after all.
That being the case, then, we better jettison the Immaculate Conception – since that was his conclusion, given the biology of the day. I mean, the incorrect biology is irrelevant, right, and the theology stands unsullied by its error?

See what I mean? When we locate a theological teaching in a discredited scientific theory, we risk looking foolish in the eyes of non-believers. Augustine taught this. Are you really going to hold to “traditional” (i.e., scientifically discredited) thought, just because it’s traditional? Good luck with that one…

 

[Gorgias]

BlackFriar:

Gorgias:

Celebrated or not, is he magisterial authority?

Again we seem to be going pedantic here. He is not personally authoritative but identifying what is

Outstanding! This is precisely what I was looking for!

After all… if this is magisterial teaching, you can provide a magisterial source that teaches it, right? If not, all the pious priests in the world cannot make it so.

So – since it is your claim, not mine, please substantiate your claim. Or, be a stand-up guy and admit you don’t have a magisterial citation for your claim. Either way is fine; anything else is dirty pool.

I have repeatedly invited clear authoritative texts or persons to support that your view (whatever exactly it is) is the more traditional.

Good on you for that.
It’s your claim, @BlackFriar: substantiate it, magisterially, if you can.

As I say I am not hung up on semen, it could be both gametes.

The problem is that the teaching that you’re claiming is authoritative doesn’t speak to ‘gametes’. It proceeds from a biological understanding that semen is ‘seed’ and it ‘plants’ itself in a ‘fertile field’ of menstrual blood. If you can’t see why that makes the “traditional teaching” suspect, then perhaps we’re done here.

If you don’t wish to that’s fine, my point is well made for stray readers here.

If they go by your magisterially unattributed claims here, they really are stray readers!

If your claims have merit, I expect I’ll see a quote from a magisterial source. If they don’t… well then, this might be this thread’s last post.

 

[Vico]

The main difficulty with the soul propagation thesis is that it would imply that after the Fall God purposely and directly damaged the soul for future generations.

But if God directly and instantaneously creates each and every soul at the moment of conception then we then seem bound to say He creates imperfection directly. This is not possible.

Imperfection (evil) is due to indirect created causes interfering with other good creative causalities God has already set in motion. Therefore imperfection of a nature cannot happen at the level of first causality but only secondary causality by the interference of Satan or our own wickedness wounding ourselves or our world. But as God alone is directly responsible for creating our souls as the primary cause (not even angels are involved) … that only leaves the material bodily order as somehow the place for this ongoung imperfection being passed down.

So like a statue of Aphrodite the artists form is perfect.
But if it is formed from sandstone rather than hard marble the resolution/rendition will be coarse and grainy and imperfect. But the form/soul the artist intended remains pristine and perfect.

So all now need baptism due to inherited privation of sanctifying grace, that we may proceed to the Kingdom of Heaven, in or out of our universe.

The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[misstherese]

This is just what I’ve heard from several mystic saints. That’s why it is usually said it is “below” or a chasm. I have no reason to think that when the earth is destroyed that it would be moved somewhere else. But I wouldn’t know for sure.

 

[BlackFriar]

Please see observations already made.

I have repeatedly invited clear authoritative texts or persons to support that your view (whatever exactly it is) is the more traditional.

Then provide an authoritative source to support your personal view it is bad theology?

If I have to choose between Aquinas, Fr Hardon and many Doctors/Fathers and just yourself I have to go with them. Until you are able to provide your own sources this probably ends the discussion.

If you don’t wish to that’s fine, my point is well made for stray readers here.

 

[BlackFriar]

Indeed, no problem locating the deprivation of sanctifying grace as a “defect” in the soul" (which isnt exactly transmitted by the act of propogation but perhaps rather by contraction which is perhaps close enough to be the same thing for all intents and purposes…though contraction equally applies to Jesus as a Child of Mary so it gets complicated very quickly ).

However the discussion is not about OS in terms of loss of SG but in terms of the concupiscible component which appears linked more to transmission of the body rather than the spirit.

 

[BlackFriar]

Its an interesting observation.
I dont think my point is lost that writers theologise from the assumed science of their day be it Babylonian, Greek or syncretist. Around 1000BC I think we have to be careful saying it cannot be this cosmology or that cosmology. There were many different scientific world views well known in Palestine as this was the crossroads of far travelling merchants from all over Europe and the East. Yes the Jews did not exhibit strong Hellenistic members or culture or have culturally Greek Kings until C6 or so but does not mean Greek cosmology had not made inroads already. The Bible does not have a single coherent cosmology as writers are from different times places and national administrations.

If we were to say,unlikely, the Psalmist at this time was wholly uninfluenced by Greek thinking he would certainly not be uninfluenced by Babylonian thinking due to the former captivity. And that thinking was much closer to Greek thinking already…with a heaven also involving observations of the planets. Also, if the Psalmist was totally uninfluenced by these great cultures he would not be seeing this heaven as a destination for human spirits or ascendings either … and we would not be having this conversation. Ancient Israel had no Greek belief in an afterlife or a resurrection.

But as I suggest, cosmologies were fluid and mixed despite official administration stances so who knows what the Psalmist at this time really meant by his ancient Hebrew words which may well have been old wineskins bearing new thinkings well known in his day. He may even have believed in an afterlife and that souls crossed the lower heaven of blue water to the upper heaven of God.

Its interesting to trace the archeological layers of cosmology in the Bible and other Jewish texts of those times by seeing how many heavens they hold to. One is very ancient Hebrew religion (with many gods) three indicates Babylonian influence, seven indicates Greek. Numbers inbetween or grouped layering indicates partial assimilation of one cultures cosmology into another.

The Psalm uses two words that are mutually exclusive: haš·šā·ma·yim (the heavens) and hā·’ā·reṣ (earth).

Thats another interesting question. I doubt it is intrinsically so in all Jewish works as Greek thinking of the afterlife and souls penetrated Hebrew thinking and gave rise to eschatology and ascensions to heaven from earth…eg Book of Enoch?
Greek cosmology recognised the alleged incompatability of earth and heaven yet still located them physically next to each other separated by the orbital sphere of the moon. Under the moon were the four elements of earth air fire and water. Beyond the moon were the 7 heavenly spheres, no elements existed here except for a fifth they called aether…the substance of spirits. Hence the word etherial.

Thus the followers of Bonaventure speak of spiritual matter.
While Thomists laugh and say, how can matter be spirit!
The war of opposing cosmologies is still with us even if we no longer hold to the old cosmology.

 

[Vico]

Its an interesting observation.
I dont think my point is lost that writers theologise from the assumed science of their day be it Babylonian, Greek or syncretist. Around 1000BC I think we have to be careful saying it cannot be this cosmology or that cosmology.

… Ancient Israel had no Greek belief in an afterlife or a resurrection.

But as I suggest, cosmologies were fluid and mixed …

…One is very ancient Hebrew religion (with many gods) three indicates Babylonian influence, seven indicates Greek. …

Thats another interesting question. I doubt it is intrinsically so in all Jewish works as Greek thinking of the afterlife and souls penetrated Hebrew thinking and gave rise to eschatology and ascensions to heaven from earth…eg Book of Enoch?
…

There are several complex mythologies, and there were connections with Egypt.

In later times the Jewish developed seven heavens ideas.

In the Old Testament, notably, 2 Esdras and 2 Maccabees refer to resurrection.

 

[Hope1960]

I know Scripture mentions the three Heavens, but where does it imply the third Heaven is in another dimension?
And how can Enoch and Elijah be there, as some people believe?