Why Not ReUnite with Our Traditional Bretheren

[MrS]

ByzCath:

To run for public office one must water down the Truth, I do not ever plan to run for such a thing.

I understand what you are saying and I must say, you have done so in a very diplomatic manner but it gets to me when others saythings about my faith and do so like they are experts when they are not even close.

I will take what you have said to heart but let me ask this.

Was I wrong in anything I said, or is it just the way I said it that bothers you?

IMHO, you were right. (and not because our first names are the samehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif)

I was out of the church for 25 years, and did not care (or even hear) what detractors said about the faith of my youth. Having returned … I first wondered what happened to my Church - who stole it?

So for the last dozen or so years, I read, study, and share.

but it gets to me when others saythings about my faith and do so like they are experts when they are not even close.

That is why I include moderating a high school apologetic class. Best way to learn something is to try and teach it. I hope to always remain an apologist in training.

So, David, may an inner sign of your faith be that you will always want more of it!

 

[Cherub]

JKirkLVNV:

He’s already urged on the bishops a generous exercise of the Indult. Why don’t “disenfranchised” TLM Catholics look into relief through canon law?

No offense is meant here, and I am speaking only from my own experiences with SSPXers: the ones I have met – every last one of them-- call the Indult the “insult.” They will not attend a Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular because they do not believe the Mass is valid and that the confection of the Holy Eucharist does not take place. They also will not attend the “insult Mass” because they say it still isn’t celebrated properly, but even if it was it is invalid on the grounds that it required special permission to take place. From what I have seen, there simply is no dealing with these people.

 

[Tomosaki]

Now you are saying the Pope derives from the Holy Spirit? Do you know what derivative means? If your understanding of the word is correct then your statement is pure heresy.

Taken right out a College Textbook on Theology, I think you are incorrect, you may believe in the Holy Trinity, but not the Pope, the derivitive of the Holy Spirit, The Body of Christ and Consecration, and on and on. I can never see the Church uniting with the Orthodox, I think we have more in common with the Protestants in some ways.

Somebody will object, that there are really theological and dogmatic differences between the eastern church and Rome. That is true, but these differences didn’t cause the split. They were cited after the fact to explain the completed division. Above all it was the church of the East, which searched for heresies, with which it could reproach Rome in the proud confidence of theological superiority and of the possession of the old orthodoxy which had been determined at the ecumenical synods. The theologians of the East looked down at those of the West. Where else than in the East were there ecumenical synods? Where else than in the East authentic theology, compared to which the Latins, even an Ambrosius or an Augustine, were upstarts? Whoever was separated from the eastern church, for whatever reason, must be a heretic. Already in the schism of Photios in the 9th century, which prepared the way for the big schism of 1054, it became clear that the reproach of heresy was secondary. Among the heresies which the great scholar Photios found - he probably would have tolerated it, if his non-canonical vote had been recognized by Rome - , the most significant, the only one which concerned the topic of doctrine, was the “Filioque”, the occidental addition to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but rather also from the Son. Perhaps the sentence by John of Damascus in the exposition of the orthodox faith in the 8th century refers already to a border against the “Filioque”, accepted in Toledo in 589: “the Holy Spirit … is from the Father, and we call Him the Spirit of the Father. On the other hand, we do not claim that He is from the Son, however, we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” (“De Fide Orthod.” I, 8; “Library of the Church Fathers”, vol. 44, pg. 27)

Although the “Filioque” was expressly taught even by theologians of the East (Ephraim the Syrian, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius), it made itself felt theologically only by Augustine’s influence and became, corresponding to the Augustinian conception of the Trinity, a characteristic doctrine of the western church. If you compare both types of Trinitarian doctrine, then you must say, that the Greek church here represents an older type which is still strongly determine by the theology of Origen with its subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Theologically, biblically, seen, the occidental teaching is more correct, even if one must concede to the Orient - even the popes did - , that the introduction of the “Filioque” into the creed, the only one which the East and the West have in common, without asking the East was not well done. The reproach of heresy has never been raised by Rome against the orthodox church, but rather the other way 'round. It was Photios, the universal scholar, who with his authority justified this charge, and stamped it so deeply into the church of the East that every oriental Christian, even if he doesn’t even know the main teachings of his church, knows that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the Christians of the West are heretics because they do not believe this. But the dogmatic reproach was only a disguise for ecclesio-political claims. Opposing Nicholas I was a patriarch, who quite seriously thought about “directly laying claim to the ‘primacy’ for Constantinople” (Kattenbusch, P.R.E. vol. 15, pg. 381). The role which the Filioque played in the schism of Photios was played by the question of the Azyma in the schism of 1054. Along with other heresies, like, e.g., the western practice of fasting on Friday and Saturday which Photios had already criticized, the worst one, for Michael Caerularius and the eastern church, was the use of “unleavened bread” for the Eucharist, which had been adopted into the about 200 years previously in the occidental church. It is telling that, for the church of the East, not only a false teaching, but rather also an incorrect (according its opinion) liturgical practice can be a heresy

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

CrusaderNY:

It is a shame that all we see and hear from the Vatican and on discussion boards such as this is what we need to do as Catholics to reunite with real schismatic groups such as the Orthodox church, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and the Protestants, who threw the church in turmoil for almost a century. Why are we not discussing bringing back, what was the backbone of our church for centuries, the Traditional Catholics, who have not gone out and created their own new religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have, but have just held to the teachings of the church as was taught up to Vatican II.

Any thoughts on why this is a taboo subject???

What’s the betting that in 300 years’ time the SSPX will have moved from being a schism to being a “sister church”, as the Orthodox have ?​

That sort of “sister church”, is merely a schism that has survived long enough to be treated politely ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ByzCath:

Crusader,
In the quoted reply from you below you show a great lack of understanding of even the Catholic Church.

You are sort of correct here, this is known as universal jurisdiction but the Holy Father does not use it all that often.

For example, he allows the bishops to decide on their own if they will allow female altar servers, reception of the Eucharist in the hand, and the Indult for the Trad Latin Mass.

The Holy Father, in his diocese of Rome, does not allow female altar servers nor reception of the Eucharist in the hand but he does not mandate this for all dioceses.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches believe and teach the samethings on the primacy of a bishop within his diocese. They also hold to the councils but the Catholic Church went on after the Great Schism to have more councils which the Orthodox were not part of so I think it would be wrong to assume that the Orthodox are bound by them.

This is something that needs to be discussed between the Churches for reunification to occur.

Wrong again. The filioque, or the double procession as recited in the Creed does not exist in the Creed recited by the Byzantine Catholic Churches. Sorry to tell you but we only say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, period. We are Catholics and we do not accept it, we agree with the Orthodox on this matter.

Wrong again. The stain of Orginal Sin is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, this is just the Augustian view of it. The Orthodox, as well as the Byzantine Catholic, Churches have the same view on this. We believe that the Mother of God was sinless. This is why we Byzantine Catholics do not the Immaculate Conception on our Liturgical calendar, we celebrate the Conception of St Anne.

As for the Assumption, this is celebrated as the Dormition. We believe that the Mother of God died, or fell asleep in the Lord, and then her body was assumed into Heaven. No difference really as the Catholic Church does not dogmatically teach that the Mother of God did not die.

[continued]

Give that all this is so, I wish someone would explain how it can be a sin in Rome to deny the Filioque, and a virtuous act in Kiev or Athens to resist and deny it.​

The same applies to the manner of transmission of original sin - and IIRC to the OT canon of the Bible: there are 72 or 73 books for RCs - and a handful more for their Eastern co-religionists

It seems that what is de fide in one part of the Catholic Church, is nothing of the kind - is even an error - in another. Is this what passes for The Catholic Truth ?

What one calls orthodoxy, seems to depend entirely on which Catholic Church one is joined to. This is way past laughable - and an excellent recipe for cynicism. So much for objections to relativity - how is this not relativity ? ##

 

[pnewton]

Cherub:

No offense is meant here, and I am speaking only from my own experiences with SSPXers: the ones I have met – every last one of them-- call the Indult the “insult.” They will not attend a Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular because they do not believe the Mass is valid and that the confection of the Holy Eucharist does not take place.

I find this post to go to the root of the problem. Those you engage in name calling are more wrapped upi in their rebelliion than the ideology. The one point of theological disagreement which must be addressed is that of ecclesial authority, and that requires humility. It is one thing to boast of how one is humble before God, and another to humble your self before God’s representative.

I hope the church will reach out to all who wish to return, but not at the expense of the truth, be it to the SSPX or any protestant church.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

Joannes:

. They would have to quit claiming, as you do, that we Catholics in union with Pope John Paul II have “created (our) own religion as the Protestants and Orthodox have,” as you put it.

This is the problem exactly. “You” ( and no, I do not mean you personally) have created your own religeon. Much of the liturgy in Catholic churches today bears no resemblance to what was intended and promulgated by Vatican II. Do you care?

Frankly I am increasingly angry about the attitude of many modernist Catholics. Any complaint or worry people express about what is going on in their church is greeted with a yawn, closely followed by an accusation of schism.

The modernist Catholic Church in America has become a circus… an entertainment venue. It no longer seems to matter what people do or think just what they feel. Is it any wonder that people are abandoning it?

 

[juno24]

Tomosaki:

Now you are saying the Pope derives from the Holy Spirit? Do you know what derivative means? If your understanding of the word is correct then your statement is pure heresy.

Tomosaki, I don’t think that is what he meant at all. He was speaking about the Holy Spirit being a derivative of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Perhaps he should have said “the derivation of the Holy Spirit” in order to be more clear.

Judy

 

[CrusaderNY]

Exerpt from the RCF , where even pedophile priests are offered protection, but Traditionalism is not:

As president of RCF since 1996, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness first-hand some of the horrific consequences of this vile vice that some of our bishops and priests now refer to as a “gift” from God. While in Dallas, RCF held a press conference to expose some of these offenders. We named two priests from the Dallas Diocese who had been part of St. Sebastian’s Angels, a network of homosexual priests who were operating on the internet.

In January of this year, The Boston Globe forced this issue out into the open by exposing Bernard Cardinal Law. The Boston prelate showed a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of children by allowing two homosexual priests who had sexually abused children to continue to function as men of God, thereby enabling them to abuse others.

On the opening day of the bishops’ meeting, the Dallas Morning News published a story presenting facts that suggested at least two thirds of the American hierarchy had protected sexually abusive clergy. Since January, two American Bishops, Anthony O’Connell of West Palm Beach, FL, and Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY, have resigned after they were accused of the sexual abuse of teenage boys. A third bishop, auxiliary James F. McCarthy of New York, resigned after admitting to having had affairs with women. A former boyfriend of Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee recently went public with the fact that he was paid $450,000 to keep quiet about his relationship with the Archbishop. Even though the diocese of Jefferson City, MO, paid a cash settlement to one of Bishop O’Connell’s victims in 1996. O’Connell was appointed Bishop of West Palm Beach, FL, by Pope John Paul II. Until bishops are held accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Three years ago, Bishop J. Keith Symons, also of West Palm Beach, resigned after he admitted abusing five boys when he was a priest. A year later, RCF found him leading retreats in the Lansing Diocese, still carrying the title “Most Reverend”. The list goes on.
**The bishops are the problem and proof of their anti-Catholic attitudes is readily available. **

A June 3, 2002 New York Times article stated "Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. ‘People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.’ Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. [3]

Dr. Navarro-Valls based his statement on a 1961 Vatican document titled, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders” that was promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. The paragraph regarding homosexuals and the priesthood states: “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” (emphasis added)The document, which can be found on RCF’s web site at [www.rcf.org]](www.rcf.org]) was signed by Pope John XXIII, the very Pope praised by the liberals for calling the Second Vatican Council.

**Homosexual priest who abuses children and presents false teaching than for the faithful whom they have sworn to serve. While the rights of the homosexual priest are protected, the rights of the faithful priests and laity are trampled underfoot. **

**The scandalous sex education that destroys the innocence of children, pro-abortion Catholic politicians who go unchallenged by our bishops, heretical teachings, and liturgical abuse all point to a loss of faith on the part of our bishops. It seems the only zero tolerance policy our bishops are willing to enforce is a zero tolerance for orthodoxy and the traditional Mass. **
Munda cor meum:

This is the problem exactly. “You” ( and no, I do not mean you personally) have created your own religeon. Much of the liturgy in Catholic churches today bears no resemblance to what was intended and promulgated by Vatican II. Do you care?

Frankly I am increasingly angry about the attitude of many modernist Catholics. Any complaint or worry people express about what is going on in their church is greeted with a yawn, closely followed by an accusation of schism.

The modernist Catholic Church in America has become a circus… an entertainment venue. It no longer seems to matter what people do or think just what they feel. Is it any wonder that people are abandoning it?

 

[Cherub]

**Homosexual priest who abuses children and presents false teaching than for the faithful whom they have sworn to serve. While the rights of the homosexual priest are protected, the rights of the faithful priests and laity are trampled underfoot. **

The Church has had to learn from these tragedies and act accordingly. There is no pedophile priest who will find protection now; in fact, the U.S. dioceses all have policies stating the series of events that will follow allegations of abuse by not only clergy, but volunteers working with children as well. In an organization as large as the Catholic Church, there are going to be bad things happening because all people are not good. The same will eventually be true for the SSPX, given time, unless every single priest of the SSPX is a walking saint, and everyone given charge of children in it saints as well.

The thing is, these priests have not broken away with their parishioners and formed their own sect. They are subject to the authority of the Church and stand to be held accountable to it. The reason the SSPX is being opposed it because it has broken away, for all intents and purposes, in defying the Church and claiming her Mass is not valid.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

It seems as if we are due for a good old fashioned inquisition!

Who’s game?

It seems as if SPXers use their schism as a shield to protect themselves from being dishonored by the behavior of deviants.

I can say that I don’t blame them.

Let none of us become accusers of the brethren.

 

[CrusaderNY]

Thank you…

juno24:

Tomosaki, I don’t think that is what he meant at all. He was speaking about the Holy Spirit being a derivative of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Perhaps he should have said “the derivation of the Holy Spirit” in order to be more clear.

Judy

 

[CrusaderNY]

Agreed, I actually read that the Protestants and Orthodox are no longer considered schismatic as they lasted 200 years or something. I will research

## What’s the betting that in 300 years’ time the SSPX will have moved from being a schism to being a “sister church”, as the Orthodox have ?

That sort of “sister church”, is merely a schism that has survived long enough to be treated politely ##

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Crusader,

Actually, we no longer call the Orthodox and Protestants “schismatic” or “heretics” because they were not Catholics who left. These are people who were born into the situation in which these conditions already existed.

With regard to your original question: might it not be better phrased “why don’t the Traditional Bretehren reunite with the Church”? After all, the tail needs to join the dog, not the other way around.

Deacon Ed

 

[MrS]

Deacon Ed:

Crusader,

Actually, we no longer call the Orthodox and Protestants “schismatic” or “heretics” because they were not Catholics who left. These are people who were born into the situation in which these conditions already existed.

With regard to your original question: might it not be better phrased “why don’t the Traditional Bretehren reunite with the Church”? After all, the tail needs to join the dog, not the other way around.

Deacon Ed

I fear this use of the phrase Traditional Brethren is too inclusive. After all, the FSSP are Traditional, and certainly our brethren.

 

[TNT]

From CrusaderNY: The Roman Catholic Church believes that there is a third place after we die, or Purgatory where (GUILT for VENIAL) sins (is removed) and (Temporal punishment remaining for sins forgiven) before the souls of holy people are let into Heaven. The Orthodox Church prays for the dead and believes that such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God. We cannot know about Purgatory and so the Orthodox Church doesn’t accept it. (TNT put in the () items.).

From ByzCath] POST 12: Neither do the Byzantine Catholic Church. Really the Roman Catholic Church does not teach what you say. The **Holy Father has written that purgatory is not a place. ** We, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches, do believe in the purgative process.
**The remaining is TNT Response: **
Something that a pope comments on is not DE FIDE, and you know that. If he believes that as a theologian, so what? It is no pronouncement of required belief.

Just so there is no confusion: The existence of Purgatory is defined as a dogma of the Church by both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Thus it is obligatory for all Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Church to accept and believe in the existence of Purgatory.
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)“It is likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments…” (Laetentur coeli, Council of Florence, 1439 A.D.Sess VI, DZ 693)

**This Part is interesting: **

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees.

TRENT: SIXTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY Canon 30.
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
TRENT: TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: “Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”
Pope John Paul II-June 2, 1998 1. This year, when we are celebrating the millennium of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, established by S. Odilo, fifth Abbot of Cluny, the centenary of the foundation of the Archfraternity of Our Lady of Cluny, committed to praying for the souls in purgatory, … All Souls Day gradually spread from the Abbey of Cluny and is now the practice throughout the universal Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

From ByzCath]
POST 12: Neither do the Byzantine Catholic Church. Really the Roman Catholic Church does not teach what you say. The **Holy Father has written that purgatory is not a place. ** We, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches, do believe in the purgative process.
**The remaining is TNT Response: **
Something that a pope comments on is not DE FIDE, and you know that. If he believes that as a theologian, so what? It is no pronouncement of required belief.

Just so there is no confusion: The existence of Purgatory is defined as a dogma of the Church by both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Thus it is obligatory for all Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Church to accept and believe in the existence of Purgatory.
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)“It is likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments…” (Laetentur coeli, Council of Florence, 1439 A.D.Sess VI, DZ 693) .

Right, just as your quote from the Council of Florence says, “cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments”. That is what I meant about the purgative process.

Purgatory is not a place. Yes the Holy Father has said this and seeing that he made this statement in his Wednesday Audiences, it is more than just his opinion as a theologian.

See HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY, Pope John Paul II

You must understand that just because we use different theological terms does not mean that we believe differently, it is just expressed differently.

You can not expect us to adhere to Latin theological language.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Right, just as your quote from the Council of Florence says, “cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments”. That is what I meant about the purgative process.

I did not object. The problem was that I was uncertain about your belief in purgatory as a condition of punishment or a De Fide teaching.

Purgatory is not a place. Yes the Holy Father has said this and seeing that he made this statement in his Wednesday Audiences, it is more than just his opinion as a theologian.

Well, I didn’t realize he said it on Wed. Now I see the De Fide in it.
Of course, and John XXII (I believe) taught firmly no beatific vision by anyone until the Last Judgement.
That went over big. But then he probably skipped teaching on De Fide Wednesday.
Would a person as yourself have bowed to that too? I mean if it was in a Wed. audience, of course.
I take it then that a soul has no “place”, like Detroit, or the center of the earth. (Actually, Detroit would be by definition a place of punishment.) But a soul resides or abodes somewhere
Complete absence of place does not appear possible for something that was a creation, and exists. After all, if it is “not a place” then the only thing left is “no place”.
ps, I hope you take well to ribbing.

 

[Joannes]

Hello all:

Just a couple things. To David I’d say that I think Eastern Catholics are expected to adhere to some “Latin theological language” (dogmatic definitions in Latin), just as Western Catholics are expected to adhere to some “Greek theological language” (dogmas expressed in Greek). That’s because I think the infallibility inheres in the actual Latin or Greek sentence. I don’t like the allergy to Latin terms I often see among some Eastern Catholics.

To TNT, I’d say that bodies take up space, but souls don’t, and no bodies ever have been or ever will be “in” purgatory, so why in the first place would anyone insist that purgatory is a place? Ditto for hell, at least until the resurrection at the end of time, when the souls in hell will again be joined to their bodies. And we know of only two bodies that are certainly in heaven, but they are glorified. Thus even heaven and hell are not essentially places.

I agree with David and the pope that these are essentially “states” , but I ask, why does the East keep harping on this, when the Church doesn’t teach that purgatory is a place anyway? Some Eastern Catholics go so far that they even deny the doctrine of Purgatory as “western”, and assert that something ridiculous like “aerial toll houses” is the “Eastern” teaching.

Regards,
Joannes

 

[TNT]

Joannes:

Hello all:

To TNT, I’d say that bodies take up space, but souls don’t, and no bodies ever have been or ever will be “in” purgatory, so why in the first place would anyone insist that purgatory is a place? Ditto for hell, at least until the resurrection at the end of time, when the souls in hell will again be joined to their bodies. And we know of only two bodies that are certainly in heaven, but they are glorified. Thus even heaven and hell are not essentially places.

I agree with David and the pope that these are essentially “states” Regards,
Joannes

Very well, does a soul “leave the body” at death? If so, was it then in the body?
When a person dies the soul goes to “no place” for that is all that is left of “not a place”? If a Baptised infant dies and goes straight to heaven, is that “not a place”? If heaven can be a place for angels and saints’ souls, then why is it impossible for there to be another place for incorporeal souls? Heaven has a materiality otherwise the body of Mary could not be “in” it.
Maybe St Thomas could shed some light on this?
**
Supplement
Question 69
Article 1
Whether places are appointed to receive souls after death?

**Entire discourse is at:
history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/350ta.html
Excerpts in context:
**

Objection 1.

It would seem that places are not appointed to receive souls after death.
Objection 2. Further, whatever has a definite place has more in common with that place than with any other. Now separated souls, like certain other spiritual substances, are indifferent to all places; for it cannot be said that they agree with certain bodies, and differ from others, since they are utterly removed from all corporeal conditions. Therefore places should not be assigned for their reception.
Objection 3. Further, nothing is assigned to separated souls after death, except what conduces to their punishment or to their reward. But a corporeal place cannot conduce to their punishment or reward, since they receive nothing from bodies. Therefore definite places should not be assigned to receive them.
On the contrary, The empyrean heaven is a corporeal place, and yet as soon as it was made it was filled with the holy angels, as Bede [Hexaem. i, ad Gn. 1:2 says. Since then angels even as separated souls are incorporeal, it would seem that some place should also be assigned to receive separated souls.
…And though after death souls have no bodies assigned to them whereof they be the forms or determinate motors, nevertheless certain corporeal places are appointed to them* by way of congruity in reference to their degree of nobility (wherein they are as though in a place, after the manner in which incorporeal things can be in a place), according as they more or less approach to the first substance (to which the highest place it fittingly assigned), namely God, whose throne the Scriptures proclaim heaven to be (Ps. 102:19, Is. 66:1). Wherefore we hold that those souls that have a perfect share of the Godhead are in heaven, and that those souls that are deprived of that share are assigned to a contrary place.
Reply to Objection 1. Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us.
Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul receives nothing directly from corporeal places in the same way as bodies which are maintained by their respective places: yet these same souls, through knowing themselves* to be appointed to such places*, gather joy or sorrow therefrom; and thus their place conduces to their punishment or reward.
**No offense, but I’ll just hang out with my Patron Saint and Doctor, and you can hang out on the Wed Audiences.