Where is Jesus now?

[Blue_Horizon]

:… are you saying that classic physics, Descartes and Newtonian physics contradict Church philosophy?

Faith
Black and white thinking is a limited way of solving difficulties…
I generally find that we often argue over different models. All models give us a semblance of “understanding” to the underlying reality of existence we can never “see” directly.

Some models are completely better than others (eg Newtonian Physics is a “simple case” of relativistic models and is good enough for everday use. However it is in fact completely superceded by the relativistic model) while some are better at some aspects and worse re other aspects. Some models barely talk to each other because they address areas of reality that barely intersect.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

While “extension” (I take that to mean properties of dimension, length, movement, etc) is not essential to materiality, it is essential to human bodyhood. Having limbs, nose, feet, etc, that stick out every which way and wiggle every which way is crucial to the special case of materiality that we call the “human body”, designed as it is for moving the mind around. An ether cloud or a mathematical point cannot be a human body.

More important, our LORD’s natural body became, or became part of, His resurrectional body (the tomb was empty). He kept His extensionality.

ICXC NIKA

Does a photon particle have material extension or weight? If we measure its width are we really measuring matter?

 

[GEddie]

Does a photon particle have material extension or weight? If we measure its width are we really measuring matter?

Photons are not matter, and neither a particle nor a wave can be a body.

Bodies REQUIRE extension. Personal space (the volume of the body) and peripersonal space (the volume within the reach of the limbs) are essential attributes in human bodyhood.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Faith1960]

Faith
Black and white thinking is a limited way of solving difficulties…
I generally find that we often argue over different models. All models give us a semblance of “understanding” to the underlying reality of existence we can never “see” directly.

Some models are completely better than others (eg Newtonian Physics is a “simple case” of relativistic models and is good enough for everday use. However it is in fact completely superceded by the relativistic model) while some are better at some aspects and worse re other aspects. Some models barely talk to each other because they address areas of reality that barely intersect.

Okay, I really have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I know nothing about models, physics, photons, extension or anything else, so a simple yes or no would be best. Does what we’ve been discussing conflict with Church philosophy or not?

 

[Faith1960]

This is the simple version - condensed from 7 years tertiary studies in Catholic Philosophy/Theology.

Do your homework on the key words mentioned above in wiki - I am sure you will find much info on what I have sumnmarised.

Whether you will understand it without having done a comprehensive and systematic course in Aristotle and Aquinas is another matter.

I seriously doubt I’d be able to understand any of this.

 

[Faith1960]

Does anyone else care to chime in here? Can anyone tell us what photons are? Material extension? Relativistic models? Models in general? If physics contradict Catholic philosophy and, if so, who’s right? Answering in English might be helpful.

 

[GEddie]

Does anyone else care to chime in here? Can anyone tell us what photons are? Material extension? Relativistic modles? Models in general? If physics contradict Catholic philosophy and, if so, who’s right? Answering in English might be helpful.

I’ll give it the old Austin try

A photon is the quantum unit that light comes in. It has no mass or size, and at times, it acts like a “particle” and sometimes like a wave.

Material extension is, if I understand aright, the property large objects, like our bodies, have of dimensional attributes. You have a height and a weight, your limbs have a length, etc. You are not just a point, you have extension.

The relativistic model is a set of equations that attempt to describe physical being via Einsteinian relativity.

Models generally are descriptions of physical being via sets of mathematical equations.

Whether anything conlficts with “Catholic philosophy” depends on how that philosophy is defined. If physics conflicts with Aquinas, I’d trust physics. If it conflicted with magisterial Church teaching, I’d have a problem.

God Bless, ICXC NIKA

 

[Faith1960]

He’s in Eternity, where the Heavenly beings await the rest of us

ICXC NIKA

But where is Eternity? Where is Jesus’ physical body? Is He sitting in a chair zillions of miles away, too far for us to travel? If not, then where does the CC teach us He is?

 

[Faith1960]

.

Whether anything conlficts with “Catholic philosophy” depends on how that philosophy is defined. If physics conflicts with Aquinas, I’d trust physics. If it conflicted with magisterial Church teaching, I’d have a problem.

God Bless, ICXC NIKA

Is there anything conflicting with Magesterial Church teaching and, if so, where does that leave us?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Photons are not matter, and neither a particle nor a wave can be a body.

Bodies REQUIRE extension. Personal space (the volume of the body) and peripersonal space (the volume within the reach of the limbs) are essential attributes in human bodyhood.

ICXC NIKA

GEddie
Can you provide sources/references so I may better understand your view that extension is prior to corporeality (probably a clearer word than “body” in this discussion.) There are various schools of thought on this matter from memory.

Another related angle that I have not mentioned in this discussion is the distinction between the “substance” of a thing and its “properties” (“accidents” is the traditional word but won’t make much sense to readers).

(This is directly related to the church philosophy often underlying explanations of Transubstantiation as indirectly mentioned above by another reader.)

The first property of matter is “quantity” which admits of various sub-degrees in a hierachical order. Classic “spacial extension” (i.e. as defined/understood by Descartes,Newton and 21st century men and women) would be considered under this property. And spatial extension is nowhere near the top in this hierachy of the realisation of “quantity.”

Thus, in logical theory at least, a substance can be quantified without formal spacial extension and can therefore possess corporeality because corporeality need not rely on spatial extension to be validly defined in other, higher and more abstract quantitative terms. There is a distinction between continuous quantity and discrete quantity and spatial extension.

“Corporeal substance, as such, is not quantitatively divisible. When actuated by quantity it becomes so; but is not yet spatially displayed. The accident is thus distinguished by Scholastics from the further accident of formal extension which is complementary to it, and by which the parts, already rendered distinct by quantity, are localized in space.”

This link makes interesting reading - but it will do your head in even with formal philosophic training: newadvent.org/cathen/12591a.htm

 

[Faith1960]

GEddie
Can you provide sources/references so I may better understand your view that extension is prior to corporeality (probably a clearer word than “body” in this discussion.) There are various schools of thought on this matter from memory.

Another related angle that I have not mentioned in this discussion is the distinction between the “substance” of a thing and its “properties” (“accidents” is the traditional word but won’t make much sense to readers).

(This is directly related to the church philosophy often underlying explanations of Transubstantiation as indirectly mentioned above by another reader.)

The first property of matter is “quantity” which admits of various sub-degrees in a hierachical order. Classic “spacial extension” (i.e. as defined/understood by Descartes,Newton and 21st century men and women) would be considered under this property. And spatial extension is nowhere near the top in this hierachy of the realisation of “quantity.”

Thus, in logical theory at least, a substance can be quantified without formal spacial extension and can therefore possess corporeality because corporeality need not rely on spatial extension to be validly defined in other, higher and more abstract quantitative terms. There is a distinction between continuous quantity and discrete quantity and spatial extension.

“Corporeal substance, as such, is not quantitatively divisible. When actuated by quantity it becomes so; but is not yet spatially displayed. The accident is thus distinguished by Scholastics from the further accident of formal extension which is complementary to it, and by which the parts, already rendered distinct by quantity, are localized in space.”

This link makes interesting reading - but it will do your head in even with formal philosophic training: newadvent.org/cathen/12591a.htm

Which means…what in relation to where Jesus is and the Church’s teachings vs Descartes, Newton and 21st century thinkers?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Which means…what in relation to where Jesus is and the Church’s teachings vs Descartes, Newton and 21st century thinkers?

Faith
Surely you do not expect personal enlightenment to fall out of the sky without elbow-grease on your own part. You may need to reflect for considerable time to gain insight. If this wasn’t so everybody would be wise .

We are all brain-washed by Descartian thinking where we so fully identify matter and extension as co-terminus. That is why some Church teaching (eg transubstantiation) doesn’t make much sense to us. That is why we have a harder time finding Jesus body than in medieval times (maybe they didn’t even see this as a question).

Try thinking outside the secondary-school Physics square.
I am not saying church philosophy is correct.
I am just re-opening real possibilities and wisdom that most Catholics are totally unaware of as part of their heritage which is largely unknown or ignored by modern education.

Obviously, if a corporeal substance (eg a human being) does not have to have spatial extension then Jesus, just because he has a material body, does not by that fact have to be 'somewhere." You can only be “somewhere” if you have extension. Our senses only sense material objects (that have extension) or which are “moved” by invisible forces that do not have extension (perhaps we may include light and fields here).

 

[Faith1960]

Faith
Surely you do not expect personal enlightenment to fall out of the sky without elbow-grease on your own part. You may need to reflect for considerable time to gain insight. If this wasn’t so everybody would be wise .

We are all brain-washed by Descartian thinking where we so fully identify matter and extension as co-terminus. That is why some Church teaching (eg transubstantiation) doesn’t make much sense to us. That is why we have a harder time finding Jesus body than in medieval times (maybe they didn’t even see this as a question).

Try thinking outside the secondary-school Physics square.
I am not saying church philosophy is correct.
I am just re-opening real possibilities and wisdom that most Catholics are totally unaware of as part of their heritage which is largely unknown or ignored by modern education.

You didn’t answer my question.

Obviously, if a corporeal substance (eg a human being) does not have to have spatial extension then Jesus, just because he has a material body, does not by that fact have to be 'somewhere." You can only be “somewhere” if you have extension. Our senses only sense material objects (that have extension) or which are “moved” by invisible forces that do not have extension (perhaps we may include light and fields here).

 

[Faith1960]

The first property of matter is “quantity” which admits of various sub-degrees in a hierachical order. Classic “spacial extension” (i.e. as defined/understood by Descartes,Newton and 21st century men and women) would be considered under this property. And spatial extension is nowhere near the top in this hierachy of the realisation of “quantity.”

Descartes thought the soul was located in the pineal gland, so…

 

[GEddie]

Descartes thought the soul was located in the pineal gland, so…

And Jewish antiquity located it in the big toes.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Faith
Surely you do not expect personal enlightenment to fall out of the sky without elbow-grease on your own part. You may need to reflect for considerable time to gain insight. If this wasn’t so everybody would be wise .

We are all brain-washed by Descartian thinking where we so fully identify matter and extension as co-terminus. That is why some Church teaching (eg transubstantiation) doesn’t make much sense to us. That is why we have a harder time finding Jesus body than in medieval times (maybe they didn’t even see this as a question).

Try thinking outside the secondary-school Physics square.
I am not saying church philosophy is correct.
I am just re-opening real possibilities and wisdom that most Catholics are totally unaware of as part of their heritage which is largely unknown or ignored by modern education.

Obviously, if a corporeal substance (eg a human being) does not have to have spatial extension then Jesus, just because he has a material body, does not by that fact have to be 'somewhere." You can only be “somewhere” if you have extension. Our senses only sense material objects (that have extension) or which are “moved” by invisible forces that do not have extension (perhaps we may include light and fields here).

Light definitely has an extension, since it is known to travel with a finite speed.

And fields would seem to have an extension, because their strength is distance dependent.

There cannot be a human body without spatial extension. If reduced to a point, whatever remains, although material, is not a human body. Form, reach, and movement is intrinsic to (unimpaired) human bodyhood.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

extension is prior to corporeality (probably a clearer word than “body” in this discussion.)

Only to philosophers. I am not one.

Everybody knows what a body is. “Corporeality” is a fancy word in a situation that does not require it, AIUI.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Only to philosophers. I am not one.

Everybody knows what a body is. “Corporeality” is a fancy word in a situation that does not require it, AIUI.

ICXC NIKA

Geddie
There cannot be a human body without spatial extension.
You have repeated this a number of times without sourcing Catholic sources that agree with you when asked. I have provided you with a Catholic reference that contradicts your personal view.

(Remember in the case of Jesus we are talking about a glorified body not a natural body - that is the core of the problem)

This seems to reinforce my observation that our present concepts of matter, quantity, extension and corporeality are not the same as when used by traditional Catholic theologians.

If we don’t want to think more deeply about such things or attempt to understand great Catholic thinkers of the past (which is philosophising) it limits our options re understanding “where Jesus is” to the rather straightened courses that modern physics forces us.

 

[GEddie]

Is there anything conflicting with Magesterial Church teaching and, if so, where does that leave us?

There would not seem to be such a conflict. The “official church” has never pronounced on the physical arrangement of the pneumatikon soma, beyond the Real Presence of our LORD.

In our world, HE is physically present in the Eucharistic host; however, in Eternity, “we shall see Him as He is.”.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

But where is Eternity? Where is Jesus’ physical body? Is He sitting in a chair zillions of miles away, too far for us to travel? If not, then where does the CC teach us He is?

No need for chairs to a body who can walk on water

Eternity is not a where, it is a when. Or more accurately, it is an everywhen. It is outside what we know as time, which is driven “forward” by entropy.

Eternity is not zillions of miles or millions of years away, it is right outside your skin, and as near as a blocked breath or loosened blood-vessel. It is where resurrection takes place.

ICXC NIKA