tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post9221592254600666265..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Did Jesus really eat after the Resurrection?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7987355963359597102012-08-05T12:15:28.648-07:002012-08-05T12:15:28.648-07:00@Tomy,
Don't know to whom your comment is dire...@Tomy,<br />Don't know to whom your comment is directed ... certainly I very clearly affirmed that Jesus really did eat ... however, he had no need of this food, nor was the food really digested by his interior organs.<br /><br />However, I assure you that there is no eating after the Resurrection ... this is what every saint and theologian has taught ... is your "personal reflection" in any way based on the doctrines of the Church? Or are you the first Christian to read the Bible (so that you can ignore what every saint has said for 2,000 years)?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-21283481748363633522012-08-05T12:13:18.292-07:002012-08-05T12:13:18.292-07:00@Seraphim,
There is nothing about the nature of a ...@Seraphim,<br />There is nothing about the nature of a body to necessitate that it must eat ... it could be sustained by the power of God and by the glorified soul.<br />Shall we say that the glorified eyes are not physical eyes just because it is written, "They will need no light from lamps or the sun"? ... get serious.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40415647323535979562012-08-05T10:31:57.710-07:002012-08-05T10:31:57.710-07:00Just one thought.
Throughout the Bible, Jesus alw...Just one thought. <br />Throughout the Bible, Jesus always talked about things that were REAL and EXISTING. Even the parables that He used were not imaginary.<br /><br />So, how can we assume that Jesus was acting like eating? He showed us what and how the life after death is. So, there must be eating even after the resurruction. <br /><br />This is just a personal reflection of mine. We can know the truth after His second coming.Tomy Sebastiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62793478488488833212012-05-14T17:44:44.497-07:002012-05-14T17:44:44.497-07:00So if a glorified body doesn't need food, wher...So if a glorified body doesn't need food, where does its energy come from?<br /><br />Seriously, how do you reconcile this with basic biology and physics? If a "glorified body" does not need food, then it is not a physical, material, body, and you are denying one of the most basic dogmas of the Christian Faith.Seraphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147139664156379333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-51864506738493104822012-04-24T06:42:58.822-07:002012-04-24T06:42:58.822-07:00Quantum tunneling is real and COULD apply to a who...Quantum tunneling is real and COULD apply to a whole human body, it's just that the probability is so low it would take virtually forever for that "freak" occurrence to ever happen on its own.<br /><br />http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/walk-through-wall-effect-might-b.html<br /><br />I've said this before on NTM: science now knows that physics is probabilistic rather than deterministic, so the old scholastic definition of a "miracle" or of miracles "extending" natural laws vs those overcoming them doesn't really work anymore.<br /><br />In reality, even something like levitation could happen. The probability is tiny, but there is nothing about levitation (or walking through a wall) that is physically impossible. Just extremely improbable.<br /><br />Miracles, then, can't really be conceived as about God making something physically impossible happen, but rather of Him making something extremely improbable happen. But at that point, one has to ask if the distinction between "miracles" and ordinary Providence is one of nature, or merely one of degree.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-50801164741610871962012-04-23T08:44:14.473-07:002012-04-23T08:44:14.473-07:00Very interesting discussion. Regarding two bodies ...Very interesting discussion. Regarding two bodies being in the same place at the same time, it is more accurate to say that physics has demonstrated that there 'states' that can be occupied by more than one 'particle'. For example, in a laser more than one photon can occupy the same 'state' (i.e. can have the same wave vector, polarization, etc.). On the other hand, there are certain particles (like electrons) that cannot share the same state. Thus, human beings (being made of electrons, among other types of particles) cannot walk through walls, which also are made of electrons. Clearly, Jesus' glorified body is not limited by this 'exclusion principle' that is operative between electrons. Indeed, I wonder if it is necessary that Jesus' glorified body need be composed of the same matter that makes up a pre-resurrected body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34491538587595727882012-04-22T19:47:23.334-07:002012-04-22T19:47:23.334-07:00The story of the fish. This is the evidence that h...The story of the fish. This is the evidence that has points me to Tobias.<br /><br />On His return trip from finding His beloved, a fish is torn open so that a Man blinded by sin might perceive the Son of God, assisted by His angels.<br /><br />Mercy comes to us through the entrails.James Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03601404337397444540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-10184574122986299672012-04-22T15:14:50.905-07:002012-04-22T15:14:50.905-07:00@bill bannon,
That is a really interesting interpr...@bill bannon,<br />That is a really interesting interpretation of the 153 fish! I don't think I have heard that one before.<br />I like it (as a spiritual interpretation).<br /><br />I wrote an article about this before, going through the commentaries of the Fathers of the Church ... you might find it interesting!<br />http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/04/disciples-caught-153-fish.html<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-35684670311196272782012-04-22T15:12:55.005-07:002012-04-22T15:12:55.005-07:00@bill bannon,
No, the risen will not eat in the ne...@bill bannon,<br />No, the risen will not eat in the new heavens and the new earth ... but there will be a "spiritual eating" -- and this is what will fulfill all that is most dignified in the process natural eating in human communion.<br /><br />The glorified body will no longer be subject to the necessity of food and nutrition. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80582181947724904622012-04-22T15:10:02.648-07:002012-04-22T15:10:02.648-07:00@jayeverett,
I'm sorry, but I really have no i...@jayeverett,<br />I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what your comment means ... <br /><br />In any case, as I say (following St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas), Christ most certainly did eat those fish ... but the process of digestion is another matter. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-29209892579906425642012-04-22T15:08:08.924-07:002012-04-22T15:08:08.924-07:00@Howard,
It is simply not the case that modern sci...@Howard,<br />It is simply not the case that modern science has "proven" that two bodies (by their natural powers) can be in the same place in the same time in the same respect.<br /><br />As to the difference between Lazarus and Jesus ... I don't regret that you noticed the difference ... but I do regret that you have been unable to recognize that "the risen" (especially in this article) clearly refers to those risen to glory -- instead, you chose to make a useless distinction which only served to muddy the waters; in an attempt to sound smart.<br /><br />But, yes, of course Lazarus digested food after being restored to natural animal life ... I have no idea why anyone would have expected otherwise. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7840953625471612802012-04-22T09:48:35.582-07:002012-04-22T09:48:35.582-07:00Very nice article. I believe we will eat in the r...Very nice article. I believe we will eat in the resurrected world as Christ did then because eating is such a communal part of the Bible. Abraham feeds the three strangers who speak with one sentence (Trinity hint) and much later the risen Christ feeds the apostles on the shore after they catch the 153 fish (my guess on the number: living out the 150 psalms leads to being with the 3 of the Trinity).bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25879964600898474382012-04-22T09:32:00.035-07:002012-04-22T09:32:00.035-07:00Another example of "I am smarter than God&quo...Another example of "I am smarter than God".<br />We are made in the image of God not God is made in our image. The Bible interpretations come from the Holy See (2000 years of doing so)and the fact that Jesus ate some baked fish is a fact.....so, believe in the scripture of go some where else......jayeveretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06226557343805556434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-33507713317265363822012-04-21T20:38:45.709-07:002012-04-21T20:38:45.709-07:00Father, I almost regret that I noticed an interest...Father, I almost regret that I noticed an interesting difference between the Resurrection of Christ and the resuscitation of Lazarus. Almost.<br /><br />As for "walking through wall", thank you for the reference to Saint Thomas. I respect him greatly, but he shows himself to be a man of the thirteenth century. In the intervening centuries, physics has not been idle, so he is somewhat out of date and was in error regarding the behavior of natural bodies.<br /><br />-- HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-64621173691337931402012-04-21T12:00:42.854-07:002012-04-21T12:00:42.854-07:00Very interesting post. However, it seems to imply...Very interesting post. However, it seems to imply a thoroughly utilitarian view of eating (i.e, the only reason to eat is to gain nourishment). <br /><br />As Catholics, we know our Lord placed preeminent importance on his presence at specific meal, in the Eucharist. <br /><br />While the natural purpose of sex is the conception of children, it is also undeniabley pleasing, a physical sign of the spiritual union between husband and wife, and ultimately, of union between mankind and God. <br /><br />I would suggest that eating, specifically <br />communal meals, carriea a similarly mystical significance, whether we recognize it or not. <br /><br />Could it be our Lord was acknowledging this reality when eating in common with the disciples following his resurrection, even though he had no physical need of nourishment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81324699632605931592012-04-21T11:34:15.403-07:002012-04-21T11:34:15.403-07:00@Howard,
Well, ok, I guess we have established tha...@Howard,<br />Well, ok, I guess we have established that there is really no reason to be confused about whether the article is speaking to the "resurrection" of Lazarus ... I still don't know why you decided to go after that point....<br /><br />Regarding the question of walking through walls, etc ... if you are interested, consider the following article: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-jesus-came-forth-from-tomb.html<br /><br />or also this one: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-did-jesus-vanish-from-sight-of-his.html<br /><br /><br />... think more about the walking on water and you will see that it is not a mere superficial similarity detected by the senses ... but I don't have time to continue this discussion now.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-2879383957819738712012-04-21T11:16:09.916-07:002012-04-21T11:16:09.916-07:00I have not made *any* attacks. I have no idea why...I have not made *any* attacks. I have no idea why you are reacting in such a hostile fashion.<br /><br />So the question is not whether we know of bodies that pass through other bodies (we do), or that share the same space as other bodies (again, we do), but whether we have direct sensory experience of them? And also not whether a floating log is *really* like walking on the water (it is not), but whether it is superficially similar as it is detected by our senses? In fact, both cases may have natural physical phenomena which are similar in one or two points, yet neither miracle can be explained as a natural physical phenomenon (which is why they are miracles). If it is to be claimed that one contradicts nature, but that the other only supersedes nature, that would seem to require a real difference in the relationship of the miracle to nature, not to superficial similarities of which I have direct sensory experience.<br /><br />(Actually, it is not recorded that Jesus walked through a wall, only that he came and went in a some extraordinary way.<br /><br />-- HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-75474584249146887582012-04-21T09:12:16.846-07:002012-04-21T09:12:16.846-07:00@A Sinner,
For a start (on the question of sensibl...@A Sinner,<br />For a start (on the question of sensible pleasures in the glorified body), you can look at ST Supp. q.82, a.4 -- http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5082.htm#article4<br /><br />Peace. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-10784915989351192252012-04-21T09:10:11.477-07:002012-04-21T09:10:11.477-07:00@Howard,
As you say, the mode of being present in ...@Howard,<br />As you say, the mode of being present in the Eucharist is "entirely unprecedented and unique" ... therefore, it is not helpful to compare the Resurrection to the Eucharist.<br /><br />Regarding walking on water vs. walking through walls ... you have never seen anything approximating two pieces of matter being in the same place at the same time (which is what truly occurred when Christ walked through the wall), but you have many many times seen things approximating to walking on water (as, for example, when wood floats).<br /><br />Finally, regarding the difference between Christ's and Lazarus' "resurrections" (if you are truly interested in knowledge and not merely in making an unnecessary attack) ... see an earlier article: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/04/lazarus-resuscitation-compared-to-jesus.htmlFather Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-14140034275710875542012-04-21T09:06:38.300-07:002012-04-21T09:06:38.300-07:00Interesting post - will have to go read Thomas on ...Interesting post - will have to go read Thomas on that matter. Believe or not, I was just wondering about this the other day - assuming he really ate, but didn't need to, but, where did the food go? So thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7548548272681021222012-04-20T18:33:33.697-07:002012-04-20T18:33:33.697-07:00You can call it playing word games if you like, bu...You can call it playing word games if you like, but it is a striking difference between the two kinds of "risen". I would not have guessed that someone brought back to natural life would probably be hungry. <br /><br />Two different modes of being present? Yes, but one essence. The mode of being present in the Eucharist is, as far as I know, entirely unprecedented and unique to the essence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. That's why it is so hard to understand; we have no truly similar experiences with which to compare it. It would be easy to understand, and in fact entirely dull and commonplace, if the "mode of being present" were merely symbolic, but that is heretical; the Body of Christ has a mode of being truly present in the Eucharist. (Of course, that was also true at the Last Supper, so this must have nothing in particular to do with the properties of a resurrected body.)<br /><br />As for the distinction you draw between walking on water and walking through a wall, I don't see it. Maybe that was just not the best example for the kind of distinction you wished to make. For one thing, some bodies can pass effortlessly through other bodies; neutrinos are known to do this, and there is strong but indirect evidence that there is 4 times as much "dark matter" (capable of passing unnoticed through not just walls, but the whole earth) as "normal" matter in the universe. For that matter, under the right conditions (Bose-Einstein condensation), some kinds of bodies (bosons) are actually attracted to occupy the same space as other, identical particles. (This happens, for example, in superfluid Helium-4.) Those things are all pretty irrelevant to the normal experience or the behavior of a human body, I freely acknowledge; but no more irrelevant than a log floating in the water or an insect walking on the surface tension is to Christ walking on the water. <br /><br />I think the big difficulty (for me, at least) is in distinguishing the "natural" behavior of the body of a resurrected saint and "miraculous" behavior. The immortality of the resurrected body seems to me to be miraculous. So does bilocation, which has been alleged of some saints (like Padre Pio) at certain times and for certain reasons. <br /><br />-- HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-88271526668614698882012-04-20T16:21:51.407-07:002012-04-20T16:21:51.407-07:00"Interesting you raise the question ... there..."Interesting you raise the question ... there was a good deal of debate in the Scholastic period about whether there were pleasures of taste and touch were of any use in the risen body."<br /><br />I'd be very interested to see any references you have to these questions.<br /><br />"Trying to remember (off the top of my head), it seems to me that these senses will be in use and we will have delights through them ... but not through the consumption of food (nor from sex), but rather through some other means ... perhaps ... like the way that some saints describe smelling sweet things while in prayer...."<br /><br />That's my question, though. If these delights will still exist without the good which ordered them (nutrition for the pleasure of eating, procreation for the pleasure of sex), even if not from actual eating or sex (though, Christ's example seems to suggest it is at least possible)...then what is to stop dissenters today from claiming, say, that the telos of an appetite can be transcended already? That, say, sexual pleasure could be co-opted for its own sake, "overflowing" from the (vestigial) reproductive drive, but now simply an end in itself? That's the sort of thing I worry about if we admit such appetites or pleasures in a glorified body.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-45695398789856169772012-04-20T16:17:30.088-07:002012-04-20T16:17:30.088-07:00"it can fly, but it cannot telaport."
W..."it can fly, but it cannot telaport."<br /><br />Well, define "teleport."<br /><br />The Summa's point in denying that the motion would be "instantaneous" was to deny that the body would not pass through intervening space, because a body is still a body and not a spirit.<br /><br />However, in teleportation (theoretically), the radiowaves or whatever still do pass through the intervening space (just at the speed of light)...so it would seem an analogy could still be made to teleportation (albeit, no one is saying the body would be converted to "waves")<br /><br />As for passing through doors, I thought this was attributed to the "subtlety" of a glorified body and not simply divine omnipotence.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-46329842742650535932012-04-20T14:54:32.679-07:002012-04-20T14:54:32.679-07:00@Howard,
You are just playing word-games in your f...@Howard,<br />You are just playing word-games in your first paragraph ... when I speak of the "risen" anyone should be able to tell I mean those risen to glory as opposed to those merely "resuscitated" to natural life.<br />The article itself makes this abundantly clear.<br /><br />As far as the question of "what happens to the food?" ... I do not give this as a dogmatic answer, but as the best explanation.<br />The dogma is that the risen and glorified body has no need of food.<br /><br />Finally, Jesus' risen body is not wholly and entirely free from the laws of nature ... for he cannot contradict nature (except by divine power - as when he walks through walls), he only supersedes nature (as walking on water).<br /><br />You can see the difference: bodies naturally tend to float on water, it is only beyond natural powers that Christ could walk on water.<br />But bodies have no natural tendency to be in the same place as another piece of matter, hence it is by divine power that Christ walked through walls.<br /><br />So, you are partially correct and partially incorrect -- a glorified body can move very fast, but it cannot (except, perhaps, by divine omnipotence) be in two places at the same time; it can fly, but it cannot telaport.<br /><br />Regarding the Sacred Body sacramentally present in the Eucharist ... we must not confuse Christ's proper species in his glorified body with his sacramental species in the Eucharist.<br />The two are very different modes of being present ... and thinking of them at the same time causes most people much confusion.<br /><br />Peace. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-69371717420385019782012-04-20T14:47:27.243-07:002012-04-20T14:47:27.243-07:00@Davor,
The main reason why Jesus' risen body ...@Davor,<br />The main reason why Jesus' risen body had organs is that organs are constituent parts of the body -- hence, it is more fitting to have them (even if they are no longer needed).<br /><br />Further, those organs were involved in our sanctification (especially since one must have a body to receive the Sacraments) ... hence, it is well that they be preserved in glory.<br /><br />Good question! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com