CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 25th June 2009, 07:01 AM
Paul Bellett Paul Bellett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Gaudium et Spes, n. 51


It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that Jesus is like us in his human nature, except free from sin, and that at the Incarnation, the body and soul of Jesus were created at the same time, and also at that same time, the Divine Nature and his human nature were one. Therefore, at every human conception the same simultaneous creation of body and soul occur.


It is also a dogma that Jesus is part of the Trinity, which by its nature God is begotten not made. So I have some difficulty reconcilling the fact that his soul was created during conception, when Jesus has existed all along?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25th June 2009, 11:23 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Bellett View Post
It is also a dogma that Jesus is part of the Trinity, which by its nature God is begotten not made. So I have some difficulty reconcilling the fact that his soul was created during conception, when Jesus has existed all along?

The Second Person of the Trinity is begotten in the sense that He proceeds eternally from the Father. The Second Person has always existed. But the human nature of the Second Person has not always existed.

The human nature of Jesus was created at his conception, just as all our human natures are created at conception. If not, then he would not be like us in all respects except sin.

Each human nature is body and soul.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28th June 2009, 02:09 AM
sammy sammy is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bastrop texas
Posts: 783
Default

Ron, since Mary and Jesus were preserved from illness and decay, do you think they required as much sleep and food as the rest of us? There is the passage where Jesus was asleep at the stern of the boat when it was being hammered by the waves and, Jesus was hungry after the 40 day and night fast. I get the sense that these necessities would not be as important to them in their just flesh. Also, in the resurrected body, we eat as Jesus did after he appeared with the apostles. Is it accurate to think this?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28th June 2009, 02:38 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy View Post
Ron, since Mary and Jesus were preserved from illness and decay, do you think they required as much sleep and food as the rest of us? There is the passage where Jesus was asleep at the stern of the boat when it was being hammered by the waves and, Jesus was hungry after the 40 day and night fast. I get the sense that these necessities would not be as important to them in their just flesh. Also, in the resurrected body, we eat as Jesus did after he appeared with the apostles. Is it accurate to think this?

They had the same human nature as we have, and so they still needed sleep and food. If it were ever necessary for them to do without food or sleep to an extent that would be beyond the ability of human nature, they could rely on supernatural assistance from God. I think that human nature, not fallen but in its original state, was more responsive to the soul, and less burdensome to the soul, so that the need for food and sleep was still present, but less severe.

Yes, the resurrected body eats food, as Christ also did. It is glorified, but its natural state is not completely absent. It is still a body. Food is not absolutely necessary to the glorified body, but it is still taken.

[Mt]
{26:29} But I say to you, I will not drink again from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

[Mk]
{14:25} Amen I say to you, that I will no longer drink from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

[Lk]
{22:17} And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and share it among yourselves.
{22:18} For I say to you, that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God arrives.”


Therefore, we will eat and drink after the Resurrection from the dead.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14th August 2010, 06:08 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

ensoulment and abortion

Ron,

http://www.sacredchoices.org/News_Tr...n_abortion.htm

in the article it says

St Thomas Aquinas believed in the concept of "delayed ensoulment". - Prof. Maguire, a Catholic theologian

"St. Thomas Aquinas, the most esteemed of medieval theologians, held this view. Thus the most traditional and stubbornly held position in Catholic Christianity is that early abortions are not murder."

it seems there is also an of the medieval Catholics believe that the soul enter the body only at the moment of quickening, the time when the fetus starts moving, which is at the 14th week of pregnancy.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14th August 2010, 12:22 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Aquinas and others did not have sufficient knowledge about procreation and development in the womb in order to understand that the human person is created, body and soul, at conception.

The Saints are not infallible. We follow the teaching of the Church, which is not necessarily the same as the teaching of a Saint hundreds of years ago.

Despite his error on ensoulment, Aquinas held that the Incarnation of Jesus occurred all in the same moment:

Saint Thomas Aquinas, citing Saint Gregory the Great: "On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xviii): 'As soon as the angel announced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the womb, within the womb the Word was made flesh.' "

Saint Thomas Aquinas, citing Saint John of Damascus: "On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): 'At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul.' "

The body and soul of Jesus were both created at the same moment, and in that same moment body, soul, and Divinity were united as one Person. But since Jesus is like us, in his humanity, in all things but sin, we also must be created, body and soul, at the same moment. Therefore, ensoulment is not delayed.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14th August 2010, 12:58 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

I've just posted an article at Catechism.cc

Life Begins at Conception
A theological argument based on the conceptions of Jesus and of Mary
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/lif...conception.htm

This article is n. 278-279 from The Catechism of Catholic Ethics.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15th August 2010, 05:02 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

thank you Ron

I'm reading it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21st August 2010, 02:57 AM
alpha5 alpha5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
They had the same human nature as we have, and so they still needed sleep and food. If it were ever necessary for them to do without food or sleep to an extent that would be beyond the ability of human nature, they could rely on supernatural assistance from God. I think that human nature, not fallen but in its original state, was more responsive to the soul, and less burdensome to the soul, so that the need for food and sleep was still present, but less severe.

Yes, the resurrected body eats food, as Christ also did. It is glorified, but its natural state is not completely absent. It is still a body. Food is not absolutely necessary to the glorified body, but it is still taken.

[Mt]
{26:29} But I say to you, I will not drink again from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

[Mk]
{14:25} Amen I say to you, that I will no longer drink from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

[Lk]
{22:17} And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and share it among yourselves.
{22:18} For I say to you, that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God arrives.”


Therefore, we will eat and drink after the Resurrection from the dead.

Is this open to interpretation? After all, the Angelic Doctor was totally convinced and used to teach quite the opposite, that neither the glorified nor the damned will drink or eat anything after the resurrection. If the body continued its normal digestive functions then this would imply that we also would have to pee and poop and he taught that this is not the case. He also held that the damned will not be able to weep with tears, but only feel the distress and the affliction of the face and head associated with it, because if they wept with tears then at some point the tears would run out since the body is not being rehydrated with water. Jesus ate fish after He resurrected to remove all trace of doubt from His disciples that He was really alive and not a ghost. This was a true miracle, held St Thomas Aquinas, that was an exception and will not be the case in general.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21st August 2010, 12:22 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

It is an open question as to whether or not the resurrected just eat and drink.

The Summa addresses this point in the supplement, which was not written by St. Thomas. The arguments there are, to some extent, based on his other writings. But he did not write anywhere on each and every point, and the arguments are clearly not given with the same depth and clarity of understanding as the rest of the Summa.

Eating and drinking in the resurrection does not imply the bodily functions of digestion and elimination, because the resurrected just have preternatural abilities. Their bodies are no longer constrained by the laws of nature.

Despite the opinion in the Summa, Scripture indicates that there is eating and drinking after the Resurrection.

[Luke]
{5:33} But they said to him, "Why do the disciples of John fast frequently, and make supplications, and those of the Pharisees act similarly, while yours eat and drink?"
{5:34} And he said to them: "How can you cause the sons of the groom to fast, while the groom is still with them?
{5:35} But the days will come when the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast, in those days."

{17:7} But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, would say to him, as he was returning from the field, 'Come in immediately; sit down to eat,'
{17:8} and would not say to him: 'Prepare my dinner; gird yourself and minister to me, while I eat and drink; and after these things, you shall eat and drink?'
{17:9} Would he be grateful to that servant, for doing what he commanded him to do?
{17:10} I think not. So too, when you have done all these things that have been taught to you, you should say: 'We are useless servants. We have done what we should have done.' "

{22:17} And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and he said: "Take this and share it among yourselves.
{22:18} For I say to you, that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God arrives."

{22:29} And I dispose to you, just as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom,
{22:30} so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and so that you may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

[Mark]
{14:24} And he said to them: "This is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many.
{14:25} Amen I say to you, that I will no longer drink from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God."

[Revelation 22]
{22:1} And he showed me the river of the water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
{22:2} In the midst of its main street, and on both sides of the river, was the Tree of Life, bearing twelve fruits, offering one fruit for each month, and the leaves of the tree are for the health of the nations.

One might interpret all of the above references as being merely figurative. However, the context of some of the passages is that of literal eating and drinking. Jesus was literally eating and drinking when he discussed "that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Also, the Resurrection is accompanied by a new earth as well as a new heaven. And this implies that the human person, who is body and soul, will enjoy not only the great delights of Heaven and of the soul, but also of earth and of the body. Eating and drinking are done even now, not solely for nutrition, but also for enjoyment and celebration. So my opinion is that the resurrected just eat and drink after the general Resurrection. For they are rejoicing at the wedding feast of Jesus and His Church.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.