Corporeality, the hindrance to Last Ends?

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

TS:

I was thinking more along the lines of what it is about the angelic nature that makes it susceptible to the sin of Lucifer. Why would an angel, fully aware that it is a creature of God, determine to look to itself, knowing full well that once a determination is made (by an angel) it cannot be rescinded. As committed as you appear to be, you can change your mind at any time, whereas an angel cannot (per Catholic doctrine). What is it about such a "perfect" creature that would make it that susceptible? Perhaps the fact that it never had any communion with corporeality?



I am trying to envision that. There is no mention of angels in the period before the flood. To my knowledge there is no mention of them ministering to Noah either, when he was in need. I think that the angelic ministry, as a ministry, began later with the beginning of the history of the Jewish people. This would exclude the book of Enoch from a proclamation of "inspired."



In another thread, I have been conversing with a poster who has outlined an extensive model of God, the universe, and His creatures. The thread is entitled, "Space?" (It's worth a read.) In this theory, God creates at one level, the implicate level, and creation becomes physical at another level, the explicate level. God, as well, is seen as Infinite Continuous Space. Matter is seen as finite discrete space. The universe, which is an exigency within continuous space, consists of point particles. Point particles are seen, at the explicate level, as electrons and the fermions and bosons that make up protons and neutrons. All of these so-called "point particles" are dimensionless. When the Big Bang took place, these point particles began expanding until what exists now (at the explicate level) is a lattice of points (s-points), called s-gaps, that form what is called an s-frame, in this case, the cosmic s-frame. In between these points of the "s-frame," within the s-gaps, is continuous space, e.i., God. And, that is how He remains contiguous with matter and space.

Matter is nothing more than configured s-points within the s-frame. Specific configurations of s-points are the determinants of specific species of matter. Angels and souls are "sparks," again, so to speak, produced from God Himself, that either are free from s-point configurations, or embedded in them, one in each configured group of s-points.

Now, I am relating all of this to you, not to throw us off your desired intent, but to offer a possible mechanism whereby angels (non-composites) and human souls (composites) may have existence together, within the level of God's Reality.

To get back to Lucifer's fall from grace, is it possible, do you think, that Lucifer, seeing God's Creation, s-points, s-gaps, cosmic s-frame, configuration algorithms, how God causes motion (at the explicate level, which is simply God advancing s-gaps within the s-frame in small jumps), that he was so amazed that He withdrew himself from analyzing it? We know that smart people exist and that dumb people exist. Is it possible that Lucifer was a dumb angel? By this I mean, not "dumb" by our standards, but in terms of angelic standards. Otherwise, the impetus for his stupid decision is hard to fathom.



Terrific! I'll look forward to it.

God bless,
jd

I can't help but think that theory is just a spin off Plato's Theory of Form. In the highest heaven all that exists is form, changeless and highest in perfection, all form participation in the form of good, or God. Since matter can never represent the highest grade of this or that form, it participates in that form in a separate reality that varies in degrees, or this "shadow world" as Plato would call it. The garden most likely existed in that place (empyrean heaven), incorporeally but as punishment we were casted in the material, or shadow world, representation of our true reality. Hence, this material existence is a hindrance. And in the new earth and heaven with the resurrection of the dead, I don't see how operation of body would follow since all will be immutable and eternal in and with God.


As far as Lucifer, I was under the impression that pride was the root of his fall, that he desired to be the light and create light in his own way. Reading St. Hildegard's vision regarding his fall, she described his fall looking inwards and desiring what he couldn't be by nature and demanding to do as God did/does.

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

TS:

The answer must suffice! Look: God is Infinite. As "infinite," even if we try to think of Him as a completely different substance, as "spirit," He has no choice but to completely permeate us! His property of Infinity includes "magnitude." He cannot be displaced! That is precisely why matter consists of "dimensionless point particles." They do not displace Infinity. And, besides, many of the angels apparently did need a "sandbox," don't you think?

God bless,
jd

Maybe this material reality is necessary to permeate fallen humans, but the state of original justice would not follow since ST 1, 94, 1 (Aquinas writing of Adam's knowledge of God) "Nevertheless he knew God with a more perfect knowledge than we do now. Thus in a sense his knowledge was midway between our knowledge in the present state, and the knowledge we shall have in heaven, when we see God through His Essence." By way of Divine Light (infusion.) There was no mediator of instruction to Adam; it was uploaded (crude language) in his mind directly by God, bypassing all sensory organs, or by angels sent from God.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

I can't help but think that theory is just a spin off Plato's Theory of Form. In the highest heaven all that exists is form, changeless and highest in perfection, all form participation in the form of good, or God. Since matter can never represent the highest grade of this or that form, it participates in that form in a separate reality that varies in degrees, or this "shadow world" as Plato would call it. The garden most likely existed in that place (empyrean heaven), incorporeally but as punishment we were casted in the material, or shadow world, representation of our true reality. Hence, this material existence is a hindrance. And in the new earth and heaven with the resurrection of the dead, I don't see how operation of body would follow since all will be immutable and eternal in and with God.

TS:

If this material existence is, as you say, a hindrance, why then, did God go to the effort of universe creation, and the creation of trillions of humans, plants and animals? It certainly has to be easier to create angels, no?

As far as Lucifer, I was under the impression that pride was the root of his fall, that he desired to be the light and create light in his own way. Reading St. Hildegard's vision regarding his fall, she described his fall looking inwards and desiring what he couldn't be by nature and demanding to do as God did/does.

What is it that is consistently said about angels? That they are "created in a state of perfection." Isn't "pride" a sin? A Deadly sin? How did Pride sneak into perfect Perfection?

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

Maybe this material reality is necessary to permeate fallen humans, but the state of original justice would not follow since ST 1, 94, 1 (Aquinas writing of Adam's knowledge of God) "Nevertheless he knew God with a more perfect knowledge than we do now. Thus in a sense his knowledge was midway between our knowledge in the present state, and the knowledge we shall have in heaven, when we see God through His Essence." By way of Divine Light (infusion.) There was no mediator of instruction to Adam; it was uploaded (crude language) in his mind directly by God, bypassing all sensory organs, or by angels sent from God.

TS:

OK. But we know what the effects from the Fall were. We know that God made an aspect of Himself into a man and that man had himself put to a very agonizing death. Remember, Jesus is both Man and God. He is no less man, and no less God. But how? He was made as all other men are made. A Form, that is, a "spark" emanates from God and entwines with configured discrete space. Seen from the height of God, Jesus looked just like any man. The only difference is that God had a very special and loving place in his heart for that Form that was Christ.

All that special effort: why? Just to create the mundane? I think not.

God bless,
jd

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

TS:

If this material existence is, as you say, a hindrance, why then, did God go to the effort of universe creation, and the creation of trillions of humans, plants and animals? It certainly has to be easier to create angels, no?

I think the only way to answer the question is to challenge the notion that angels are superior by all means then humans. They are superior in knowing the light, but could it be that humans are superior, maybe the wrong word to use since angels can't even feel in the first place so there is no greater or lesser in sense in comparison, in feeling the light? This would put a different perspective on last ends for the human person and how the beatific vision is enjoyed by the human. Was reading the following of G.K. Chesterton about his thoughts of Buddhism, it all made me contemplate this subject but the underline really struck me,

To the Buddhists was given a conception of God of extraordinary intellectual purity; but in growing familiar with the featureless splendor, they have lost their heads; they babble; they say that everything is nothing and nothing is everything, that black is white because white is black. We fancy that the frightful universal negatives at which they have at last arrived, are really little more than the final mental collapse of men trying always to find an abstraction big enough for all things. “I have said what I understood not, things too great for me that I know not. I will put my hand upon my mouth.” Job was a wise man. Buddhism stands for a simplification of the mind and a reliance on the most indestructible ideas; Christianity stands for a simplification of the heart and a reliance on the most indestructible sentiments. The greater Christian insistence upon personal deity and immortality is not, we fancy, the cause so much as the effect of this essential trend towards an ancient passion and pathos as the power that most nearly rends the veil from the nature of things. Both creeds grope after the same secret sun, but Buddhism dreams of its light and Christianity of its heat. Buddhism seeks after God with the largest conception it can find, the all-producing and all-absorbing One; Christianity seeks after God with the most elementary passion it can find—the craving for a father, the hunger that is as old as the hills. It turns the whole cry of a lost universe into the cry of a lost child.

- The Speaker

What is it that is consistently said about angels? That they are "created in a state of perfection." Isn't "pride" a sin? A Deadly sin? How did Pride sneak into perfect Perfection?

God bless,
jd

Both Angels and Man were created in a state of grace, for perfection precedes imperfection as actuality precedes potentiality. I think your question can be answered by relation of how G.K. Chesterton, yes I know again I'm quoting him, thought of the fall of man:

Moreover, there is another reason that makes it almost inevitable that we should defend grotesquely what we believe seriously. It is that all grotesqueness is itself intimately related to seriousness. Unless a thing is dignified, it cannot be undignified. Why is it funny that a man should sit down suddenly in the street? There is only one possible or intelligent reason: that man is the image of God. It is not funny that anything else should fall down; only that a man should fall down. No one sees anything funny in a tree falling down. No one sees a delicate absurdity in a stone falling down. No man stops in the road and roars with laughter at the sight of the snow coming down. The fall of thunderbolts is treated with some gravity. The fall of roofs and high buildings is taken seriously. It is only when a man tumbles down that we laugh. Why do we laugh? Because it is a grave religious matter: it is the Fall of Man. Only man can be absurd: for only man can be dignified.

- All Things Considered


Maybe not the best relation to the subject but its food for the thought.

[Qoeleth]

So, the flesh can feel emotion- and thus bring us into a loving relationship with God. Perhaps. Perhaps there is no love without flesh, just as there is no love without pain.

But then, Eckhart says, the final goal of the soul is not love of God, but Union with God- that love means a desire for union, and that in union love no longer exists.


Here's another Fransiscan answer, from S.t Giles of Assisi:

Our frail and miserable flesh is like to the swine, that loves to wallow in the mire, and find its delight therein. Our flesh is the devil's knight; for it resists and fights against all those things which are pleasing to God and profitable for our salvation.

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

So, the flesh can feel emotion- and thus bring us into a loving relationship with God. Perhaps. Perhaps there is no love without flesh, just as there is no love without pain.

But then, Eckhart says, the final goal of the soul is not love of God, but Union with God- that love means a desire for union, and that in union love no longer exists.


Here's another Fransiscan answer, from S.t Giles of Assisi:

Our frail and miserable flesh is like to the swine, that loves to wallow in the mire, and find its delight therein. Our flesh is the devil's knight; for it resists and fights against all those things which are pleasing to God and profitable for our salvation.

I have no idea who Eckhart is.

S. Paul , however, said "There are three things that last, faith, hope, and love". I'll take his words over Eckhart any time. He also brought to light the pneumatikon soma.

If flesh was good enough for our LORD, it's more than good enough for me!!

You are never going to be an angel, get used to it. You are a human being, a thinking body. Without your body you'd be a mangled human being, never an angel.

I have no desire whatsoever to become pure spirit, if only that I need my BODY to hug our LORD, and be hugged and held by HIM!!

ICXC NIKA!

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

GEddie:

From "The Teaching of the Catholic Church," Vol 1, Ch. VIII, The Angels, p 259, 1962:

1. Angels have a beginning, but they cannot perish; they remain everlastingly the same.
2. Angels are not subject to the laws of time, but have a duration measure of their own.
3. Angels are completely superior to space, so that they could never be subject to its laws.
4. Angelic power on the material world is exerted directly through the will.
5. Angelic life has two faculties only, intellect and will.
6. In the sphere of nature an angel cannot err, either in intellect of will.
7. An angel never goes back on a decision once taken.
8. The angelic mind starts with fullness of knowledge, and it is not, like the human mind, subject to gradual development.
9. An angel may directly influence another created intellect, but he cannot act directly on another created will.
10. Angels have free will; they are capable of love and hatred.
11. Angels know material things and individual things.
12. Angels do not know the future; they do not know the secret thoughts of other rational creatures; they do not know the mysteries of grace, unless such things a revealed freely, either by God or by other rational creatures."

It further appears that angels are mobile, unless it is true that motion is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations. I tend to think that motion, as increments of s-gaps according to a path of actualization, looks the way it does for our benefit. So that angels can traverse infinity by inserting themselves, that is, their spirits, directly into some portion of the gaps within the cosmic s-frame. In other words, they can follow the path, so to speak, of God's extensive being to any place where God is. These are just my opinions, but they may as well be the opinions of some other theists. And, they seem to dovetail with the concepts of St. Paul.

God bless,
jd

And your point is?

You are not an angel and will never be one. The closest you could ever get to being an angel is to live in Los Angeles

So what they can or can't do is wholly unrelated to you or me. We are not spirits and were never intended to be. We are human beings, and as such, thinking bodies.

The prospect of pure-spirithood should be hideous. It amounts to being bound, blindfolded and nose-plugged for a long, long time. Oh, and total amnesia on top of that.

ICXC NIKA

[tonyrey]

If corporeality were a hindrance to Last Ends:

1. God would not have given us a body

2. He would not have become incarnate

3. Jesus would not have been resurrected

4. Jesus would not have pointed to the beauty of nature as evidence of God's wisdom and love.

5. Physical desires are not the sole or even the gravest source of temptation

6. Evil does not originate in the body but in the mind

7. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", i.e. not evil

8. Sexual lust is evil but the lust for power is far more devastating

9. We are expected to be detached from ourselves not from our physical desires unless they are inordinate

10. Our physical desires are intrinsically good and should be a reason for gratitude not regret

11. The sexual union of a man and his wife is a beautiful expression of spiritual love

12. "L'homme n'est ni ange ni bête et le malheur veut que qui veut faire l'ange fait la bête." (Man is neither angel nor beast, and unfortunately he who tries to be an angel makes a beast of himself.") - Pascal

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by GEddie

And your point is?

You are not an angel and will never be one. The closest you could ever get to being an angel is to live in Los Angeles

So what they can or can't do is wholly unrelated to you or me. We are not spirits and were never intended to be. We are human beings, and as such, thinking bodies.

The prospect of pure-spirithood should be hideous. It amounts to being bound, blindfolded and nose-plugged for a long, long time. Oh, and total amnesia on top of that.

ICXC NIKA

GE:

My point? Did I have a point? Well, perhaps I did have one. I don't think that we'll be lugging around 200 lb bodies in Heaven. I don't think our re-united bodies, per se, will have anything akin to the corporeality (mass and weight) that we presently observe.

The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, pp. 42-43, 1962, has this to say:

"Finally, at the very centre of the universe, all the perfections of created being meet in the "microcosm," "the little universe," man himself, in whom a body, immeasurably superior in beauty and proportions to that of the other animals, is animated by a principle whose essence and activity are unbounded by the limits of matter; man is endowed with a spiritual, immortal soul. In this noble being the perfections of the spiritual and of the material spheres, of the visible and of the invisible worlds, are wonderfully combined. With inanimate material substances he has in common a body; with plants he shares vegetative life, whereby he absorbs nourishment from without for his development and begets others like himself to propagate his species; like other animals, he has the faculties of sense and instinct -- but what raises him far above all these is his spiritual soul, whereby he is like the angels."

Thus, I will be like the angels! (I don't know about you, though. )

No "amnesia," GE. We won't need to "remember." We will be eternally awestruck by the Vision. "Blindfolded, ear-plugged and nose-plugged" don't seem like such bad ideas to me. Oh, and we won't be "bound."

If you stop and think about it, this is an excellent refutation of the "pain and suffering" argument proposed by the non-theists. If God had made everything on earth perfect for us, why would we want to leave? Hmmm? There are already 450,000,000 atheists and agnostics, that would swell their ranks into the billions.

God bless,
jd

[GEddie]

Weight and mass are accidents of bodyhood. They can be changed, although not by our own action.

You really wouldn't mind being blindfolded, etc for a long long time?

ICXC NIKA

[levinas12]

Talking of the union of soul and body is sometimes philosophically confusing, as if there are two entities brought together into an accidental union (like Descartes' res cogitans and res extensa).

Clearly, Aristotle thought that we are our bodies. His notion of the human soul is meant to explain bodily functions (from the metabolic to the cognitive).

Aquinas followed Aristotle very closely in this.

Yes, Aquinas argued in favor of an individual agent intellect that belongs to each human being (as opposed to a separate agent intellect outside human beings). Aquinas here wanted to stress the agency of each human being in his/her "truthing" activity. But he also pointed to the individual agent intellect as our "immortal" part. But let's put this item aside. Because it gets complicated. For example, the individual agent intellect needs phantasms in order to operate; but, without the body, there are no phantasms (naturally speaking). So disembodied human immortality may still require a special supernatural intervention (e.g., for the saints to be able to intercede for us, they must be able to perceive us even in the absence of the usual phantasms).

John Paul II in his Theology of the Body continued with this Thomist emphasis on the body, but with a startling new twist - the human body reveals God precisely through its "nuptial" meaning. What does this mean?

Simply put, sacramental marital intercourse is iconic of the inner life of the Trinity, of the Divine Dance or Perichoresis of the Three Persons.

So not only is bodily communion of human persons in sacramental marriage something that is good, but such activity is our best image of the Trinity itself.

Now that is mindboggling.

[TS Aquinas]

Originally Posted by levinas12

Talking of the union of soul and body is sometimes philosophically confusing, as if there are two entities brought together into an accidental union (like Descartes' res cogitans and res extensa).

Clearly, Aristotle thought that we are our bodies. The Greek notion of the human soul is meant to explain bodily functions (from the metabolic to the cognitive).

Aquinas followed Aristotle very closely in this.

Yes, Aquinas argued in favor of an individual agent intellect that belongs to each human being (as opposed to a separate agent intellect outside human beings). Aquinas here wanted to stress the agency of each human being in his/her "truthing" activity. But he also pointed to the individual agent intellect as our "immortal" part. But let's put this item aside. Because it gets complicated. For example, the individual agent intellect needs phantasms in order to operate; but, without the body, there are no phantasms (naturally speaking). So disembodied human immortality may still require a special supernatural intervention (e.g., for the saints to be able to intercede for us, they must be able to perceive us even in the absence of the usual phantasms).

John Paul II in his Theology of the Body continued with this Thomist emphasis on the body, but with a startling new twist - the human body reveals God precisely through its "nuptial" meaning. What does this mean?

Simply put, sacramental marital intercourse is iconic of the inner life of the Trinity, of the Divine Dance or Perichoresis of the Three Persons.

So, not only is bodily communion of human persons in sacramental marriage something that is good, but such activity is our best image of the Trinity itself.

Now that is mindboggling.

Which raises the question Dr. Kreeft raised, sex in heaven (or the resurrected body)? Probably a touchy subject, but the insistence that we are our body, no debate here since I am a Thomist, puts to question if all bodily functions will be exercised in the glorified state. If some functions will no longer be used, where does it end? All functions, some, most? What of locomotion, what purpose will that serve? There seems to be very little the body can do, save receiving our Lord at the Holy Mass, in experience and worship in extent that the mind cannot.

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by TS Aquinas

Which raises the question Dr. Kreeft raised, sex in heaven (or the resurrected body)? Probably a touchy subject, but the insistence that we are our body, no debate here since I am a Thomist, puts to question if all bodily functions will be exercised in the glorified state. If some functions will no longer be used, where does it end? All functions, some, most? What of locomotion, what purpose will that serve? There seems to be very little the body can do, save receiving our Lord at the Holy Mass, in experience and worship in extent that the mind cannot.

Why would there not be movement? Even when we are "at rest", provided we are not dead or unconscious, there is some movement of the limbs or body, if only wiggling our ankles or flaring our nose. We are made for movement, and there is no reason to think we would not get that back.

Glorification implies that things are changed rather than deleted. Our familiar, comfortable human body is a glorified animal, and we inherited things like body hair from animal life. Body hair, unlike fur, does not keep us warm, but it strengthens our sense of touch (crucial to the nuptiality of our bodies).

I've no doubt that the "functions" we don't easily see continuing in Heaven will likewise be transformed by resurrection into something perfectly natural for life everlasting.

ICXC NIKA!

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by levinas12

Talking of the union of soul and body is sometimes philosophically confusing, as if there are two entities brought together into an accidental union (like Descartes' res cogitans and res extensa).

Clearly, Aristotle thought that we are our bodies. His notion of the human soul is meant to explain bodily functions (from the metabolic to the cognitive).

Aquinas followed Aristotle very closely in this.

Yes, Aquinas argued in favor of an individual agent intellect that belongs to each human being (as opposed to a separate agent intellect outside human beings). Aquinas here wanted to stress the agency of each human being in his/her "truthing" activity. But he also pointed to the individual agent intellect as our "immortal" part. But let's put this item aside. Because it gets complicated. For example, the individual agent intellect needs phantasms in order to operate; but, without the body, there are no phantasms (naturally speaking). So disembodied human immortality may still require a special supernatural intervention (e.g., for the saints to be able to intercede for us, they must be able to perceive us even in the absence of the usual phantasms).

John Paul II in his Theology of the Body continued with this Thomist emphasis on the body, but with a startling new twist - the human body reveals God precisely through its "nuptial" meaning. What does this mean?

Simply put, sacramental marital intercourse is iconic of the inner life of the Trinity, of the Divine Dance or Perichoresis of the Three Persons.

So not only is bodily communion of human persons in sacramental marriage something that is good, but such activity is our best image of the Trinity itself.

Now that is mindboggling.

Not so if the faithful sexual union of a man and his wife is a beautiful expression of creative spiritual love but devalued and debased in our sexploited secular society....

All life is an image of divine life because it is purposeful and creative.