Father I love you. Test

While out of body, I did not go to heaven, or to hell or to purgatory. My soul simply left my body while my body lay there on the bed. I hovered above my body, in my soul state, my soul with my spirit and the mantle and a hundred or so energy-cells. I did not die.

Since I had this experience of being separated from my body, and of existing as a soul, I confess it has been a great deal easier for me to see dead bodies in a new light. Previously, I had a sense that something of the person was still present or attached to the body after death. Now I am truly indifferent as to what a corpse is, for it is nothing but flesh and bone, a pile of heavy wet meat. The body is indeed a miracle onto itself, however it can do absolutely nothing without the soul, absolutely nothing. Without the soul my body is less than useless. So, since I did not die I wondered about the soul after a real death.

Our souls are not subject to corruption.

“Brother Thomas, because of this experience, I now know that our soul is not subject to decay and that it is incorruptible. How can it be otherwise, it is a spiritual substance. It has no flesh or blood or bone. It is made up of matter that belongs to another dimension. Our soul is and always will be. It is like a jewel that shines and radiates the beauty given to it by its Creator. Further, the Bible constantly underlines its importance, it being repeated at least 100 times, not to mention references to spirit. Indeed, the only reason the Bible exists, is for the sake of our soul. But, for the record Brother Thomas, is our soul corruptible?”

-No Brother Raymond.-

“We must assert that the intellectual principle which we call the human soul is incorruptible. The senses indeed do not know existence, except under the conditions of here and now, whereas the intellect apprehends existence absolutely, and for all time; so that everything that has an intellect naturally desires always to exist. But a natural desire cannot be in vain. Therefore every intellectual substance is incorruptible,  . . . it is false to say: Man has nothing more than beasts. Thus death comes to both alike as to the body, but not as to the soul.” [1]

“I agree Brother Thomas, the me that I am, is forever. When one dies one should lovingly say with our dear Lord;

“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”[2] Then, with a spirit filled with happiness and joy, go home to meet one’s Creator.

Departed persons, why do their souls look like bodies?

“Brother Aurelius, why do persons who have left this earth, appear in the Bible as persons and not as a soul as I did (though I was not dead)?

-Brother Raymond, a certain Vincentius Victor[3] once wrote to me and expressed a number of opinions that I had to refute. In a way this was a good thing, because you now have this information to answer some of your own questions.-

“Yes, Brother Aurelius, I read your work on this. First Vincentius thought that everyone had to have a body to be recognized, then he said, if you do not have a body you cannot have a name, and he believed in the literal meaning of words in the Bible. In the gospel text  (Luke 16:22) he insists that Abraham was present corporally. Brother Aurelius, please take all the time you need. I found your replies to Victor fascinating. I must also confess that I also could not understand how the rich man could identify Abraham, since he was dead and had no visible signs of identity.”

-Thank you Brother Raymond, I will only touch on two or three points. If our readers would like more information they can read my complete work on this, ‘A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin.’

-In my reply to Vincentius (Victor) (Recognition and form belong to souls as well as bodies.) I said,-

“But” -Vincentius,- “you say:”

‘If the soul is incorporeal, what was it that the rich man saw in hell? He certainly recognized Lazarus; he did not know Abraham. Whence arose to him the knowledge of Abraham, who had died so long before?’

By using these words, I suppose that you do not think a man can be recognized and known without his bodily form. To know yourself, therefore, I imagine that you often stand before your looking glass, lest by forgetting your features you should be unable to recognize yourself. But let me ask you, what man does anybody know more than himself; and whose face can he see less than his own?

But who could possibly know God, whom even you do not doubt to be incorporeal, if knowledge could not (as you suppose) accrue without bodily shape; that is, if bodies alone can be recognized? What Christian, however, when discussing subjects of such magnitude and difficulty, can give such little heed to the inspired word as to say, "If the soul be incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form"?

Have you forgotten that in that word you have read of “a form of doctrine?” Have you forgotten too, that it is written concerning Christ Jesus, previous to his clothing Himself with humanity, that he was "in the form of God"? How, then, can you say, "If the soul is incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form;" when you hear of "the form of God," whom you acknowledge to be incorporeal; and so express yourself, as if form could not possibly exist except in bodies?” [4]

For a review of a numbers of errors Vincentius Victor made on the soul that Augustine corrected, see “On the soul and its Origin (Book I) Addressed to Renatus, the monk.[5]

After death are men men and are women women? “Brother Aurelius, I really enjoyed your previous explanation, that men will be men and women will be women after death. Would you mind sharing it with us again?”

-Of course Brother Raymond. For you and your readers then...-

 “. . . make no doubt that both sexes shall rise, for there shall be no lust, which is now the cause of confusion. For before they sinned, the man and the woman were naked, and were not ashamed. From those bodies, then, vice shall be withdrawn, while nature shall be preserved. And the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child bearing; nevertheless the female members shall remain adapted not to the old uses, but to a new beauty, which, so far from provoking lust, now extinct, shall excite praise to the wisdom and clemency of God, who both made what was not and delivered from corruption what he made.

For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and his Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as he hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is "built up." For Scripture used this very word, not saying "He formed" or "framed”, but "built her up into a woman”;(1) whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ,(2) which is the Church. The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church.

He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."(3) And though it was a fit opportunity for his saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, he said nothing of the kind; but "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."(4) They shall be equal to the angels in immortality and happiness, not in flesh, nor in resurrection, which the angels did not need, because they could not die. The Lord then denied that there would be in the resurrection, not women, but marriages; and he uttered this denial in circumstances in which the question mooted would have been more easily and speedily solved by denying that the female sex would exist, if this had in truth been foreknown by Him. But, indeed, he even affirmed that the sex should exist by saying, "They shall not be given in marriage," which can only apply to females; "Neither shall they marry," which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and be given in marriage, only they shall there make no such marriages.” [6]

After death, can our separated soul understand anything?

“Brother Thomas, I know when I was separated from my body, I could still understand everything. Is this so after death?

-Brother Raymond:-

"It is clear then that it was for the soul's good that it was united to a body, and that it understands by turning to the phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way." [7]

“Brother Thomas, I confirm that when I was separated from my body, I knew and understood everything that was relative to the world I was born into, plus, (and this is a big plus) I now KNOW I have a soul that is truly separate and distinct from my body, and that my soul is eternal."

After death, can the separated soul understand separate substances?[8]

-Brother Raymond, I have to go back to Brother Augustine and quote him when he says, "(De Trin. ix, 3)  ‘our mind acquires the knowledge of incorporeal things by itself’--i.e. by knowing itself (Question [88], Article [1], ad 1). Therefore from the knowledge which the separated soul has of itself, we can judge how it knows other separate things. Now it was said above (Article [1]) that as long as it is united to the body the soul understands by turning to phantasms, and therefore it does not understand itself save through becoming actually intelligent by means of ideas abstracted from phantasms; for thus it understands itself through its own act, as shown above (Question [87], Article [1]).”

“Brother Thomas, forgive me for interrupting you, but this was exactly my experience. Of course I did not have a clue what my soul looked like. However after leaving my body, I saw it and my body in full and complete detail.”

-So, Brother Raymond, -

“When, however, it (the soul) is separated from the body, it understands no longer by turning to phantasms, but by turning to simply intelligible objects;[9] hence in that state it understands itself through itself. Now, every separate substance "understands what is above itself and what is below itself, according to the mode of its substance" (De Causis viii): for a thing is understood according as it is in the one who understands; while one thing is in another according to the nature of that in which it is. And the mode of existence of a separated soul is inferior to that of an angel, but is the same as that of other separated souls. Therefore the soul apart from the body has perfect knowledge of other separated souls, but it has an imperfect and defective knowledge of the angels so far as its natural knowledge is concerned. But the knowledge of glory is otherwise." [10]

I now realize that (probably because my body was not dead) except for the knowledge of my soul as described throughout this book, my knowledge was limited to things of this world and to things that were relative to my own experiences. I certainly did not see other souls.

After death can the separated soul know natural things?

“Brother Thomas, after death, can our separated soul know all natural things?

-Brother Raymond,- “ . . . the separated soul, like the angels, understands by means of species, received from the influence of the Divine light. Nevertheless, as the soul by nature is inferior to an angel, to whom this kind of knowledge is natural, the soul apart from the body through such species does not receive perfect knowledge, but only a general and confused kind of knowledge. Separated souls, therefore, have the same relation through such species to imperfect and confused knowledge of natural things as the angels have to the perfect knowledge thereof. Now angels through such species know all natural things perfectly; because all that God has produced in the respective natures of natural things has been produced by Him in the angelic intelligence, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). Hence it follows that separated souls know all natural things not with a certain and proper knowledge, but in a general and confused manner.” [11]

Miscellaneous questions on the soul.

Dear Reader, if I try to cover all these areas in any kind of detail, this book will go on forever. So I will exchange some “one liners” with our blessed Brothers. You can follow-up in detail from the references shown.

Animals and soul.

            In response to the question, “Did Pope John Paul II really state that the animals possess a soul and that men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren...' Fr. Jim of the “Ask-A-Franciscan question.” Web site replied:

“Creation, things and animals are God's gift to us to use and enjoy. So, understand that the human soul is made to be with God for eternity. Our soul is in the image and likeness of God. Therefore while we must respect all of God's creation, there is no comparison between the human soul and the life force of souls of plants and animals.” [12]

Brother Thomas tells us in his Summa Theologica First Part Question 75 Article 3, Whether the souls of brute animals are subsistent? "Wherefore we conclude that as the souls of brute animals have no "per se" [13]operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything follows the mode of its being."

            My own experience.

If a soul has the composite parts I have outlined in this book, then an animal has a soul, BUT it is the soul of an animal and not the soul of a person. It (animal soul) enables the animal to stay alive, i.e. it has all the powers of the soul described by St. Thomas, (Chapter 6. Powers of the Soul.) but not rational power, i.e. a spirit made in God's image and likeness, a spirit such as I have described in this book. A dog has a dog’s soul. A bird has a bird’s soul. A tree has the soul of a tree. Animals and things are guided by other powers as described in Chapter 6.

This would also apply to all other living things that move and search for food. Flesh and blood creatures need a soul to be able to move. They learn survival through an evolved experience and an evolved instinct.

“Brother Thomas, after death can the knowledge acquired here remain in our separated soul?”

-Yes Brother Raymond, - “ . . . the habit of knowledge, so far as it is in the intellect, remains in the separated soul." [14]

"Brother Thomas, this was my experience."

“Brother Thomas, after death does my separated soul know what takes place on earth?”

“By natural knowledge, of which we are treating now, the souls of the dead do not know what passes on earth. This follows from what has been laid down (Article [4]) since the separated soul has knowledge of singulars, by being in a way determined to them, either by some vestige of previous knowledge or affection, or by the Divine order. Now the souls departed are in a state of separation from the living, both by Divine order and by their mode of existence, whilst they are joined to the world of incorporeal spiritual substances; and hence they are ignorant of what goes on among us. Whereof Gregory gives the reason thus: "The dead do not know how the living act, for the life of the spirit is far from the life of the flesh; and so, as corporeal things differ from incorporeal in genus, so they are distinct in knowledge" (Moral. xii). Augustine seems to say the same (De Cura pro Mort. xiii) when he asserts that; ‘the souls of the dead have no concern in the affairs of the living.’

Gregory and Augustine, however, seem to be divided in opinion as regards the souls of the blessed in heaven, for Gregory continues the passage above quoted: ‘The case of the holy souls is different, for since they see the light of Almighty God, we cannot believe that external things are unknown to them.’ But Augustine (De Cura pro Mort. xiii) expressly says: ‘The dead, even the saints do not know what is done by the living or by their own children,’ as a gloss quotes on the text, ‘Abraham hath not known us.’ (Is. 63:16) He confirms this opinion by saying that he was not visited, nor consoled in sorrow by his mother, as when she was alive; and he could not think it possible that she was less kind when in a happier state; and again by the fact that the Lord promised to king Josias that he should die, lest he should see his people's afflictions (4 Kgs. 22:20). Yet Augustine says this in doubt and premises, ‘Let every one take, as he pleases, what I say.’ Gregory, on the other hand, is positive, since he says, ‘We cannot believe.’ His opinion, indeed, seems to be the more probable one--that the souls of the blessed who see God do know all that passes here. For they are equal to the angels, of whom Augustine says that they know what happens among those living on earth. But as the souls of the blessed are most perfectly united to divine justice, they do not suffer from sorrow, nor do they interfere in mundane affairs, except in accordance with Divine justice.[15]” (Underline is mine. Author.)

“In that soul state, I was limited to my own personal experience, when I saw for the first time what my soul, (my spirit, the mantle and the energy-cells) looked like.”

“Brother Thomas, time to give you a break. I have a couple of points to cover with Brother Aurelius.”

Brother Aurelius, “Are names given when forms are not distinguished? You wrote to Vincentius on this question, didn’t you?”

-Yes Brother Raymond, here is what I wrote.-

“Dear Vincentius, you also say, that names cease to be given, when form is not distinguished; and that, where there is no designation of persons, there is no giving of names. Your aim is to prove that Abraham's soul was corporeal, inasmuch as he could be addressed as Father Abraham.

Now, we have already said, that there is form even where there is no body.[16] If, however, you think that where there are not bodies there is no assigning of names, I must beg of you to count the names which occur in this passage of Scripture, ‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith meekness, temperance,’ and tell me whether you do not recognize the very things of which these are the names; or whether you recognize them so as to descry some outlines of bodies. Come, tell me, to mention only love, for instance, what are its members, its figure, its colors? For if you are not yourself empty-headed, these appurtenances cannot possibly be regarded by you as an empty thing. Then you go on to say: ‘The look and form must, of course, be corporeal of him whose help is implored.’ Well, let men hear what you say; and let no one implore God's help, because no one can possibly see anything corporeal in Him.”

Figurative speech must not be taken literally.

“In short” -Vincentius,- “you say, members are in this parable ascribed to the soul, as if it were really a body. You will have it, that, by the eye the whole head is understood, because it is said, that ‘he lifted up his eyes.’ Again you say, that ‘by tongues are meant jaws, and by finger the hand’ because it is said, ‘Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue.’ And yet to save yourself from the inconsistency of ascribing corporeal qualities to God, you say that, by these terms must be understood incorporeal functions and powers; because with the greatest propriety you insist on it, that God is not corporeal. What is the reason, therefore, that the names of these limbs do not argue corporeity in God, although they do in the case of the soul? Is it that these terms must be understood literally when spoken of the creature, and only metaphorically and figuratively when predicated of the Creator? Then you will have to give us wings of literal bodily substance, since it is not the Creator, but only a human creature, who said, ‘If I should take my wings like a dove.’ Moreover, if the rich man of the parable had a bodily tongue, on the ground of his exclaiming, ‘Let him cool my tongue,’ it would look very much as if our tongue, even while we are in the flesh, itself possessed material hands, because it is written, ‘Death and life are in the hands of the tongue.’ I suppose it is even to yourself self-evident, that sin is neither a creature nor a bodily substance; why, then, has it a face? For do you not hear the psalmist say, ‘There is no peace in my bones, in the face of my sins?’

Abraham's bosom, what it means.

Brother Aurelius continues...

-Vincentius, Vincentius Vincentius...- “As to your supposing that the Abraham's bosom referred to is corporeal, and your further assertion, that by it is meant his whole body, I fear that you must be regarded (even in such a subject) as trying to joke and raise a laugh, instead of acting gravely and seriously. For you could not else be so foolish as to think that the material bosom of one person could receive so many souls; nay, to use your own words, bear the bodies of as many meritorious men as the angels carry thither, as they did Lazarus. Unless it happen to be your opinion, that his soul alone deserved to find its way to the said bosom. If you are not, then, in fun, and do not wish to make childish mistakes, you must understand by Abraham's bosom that remote and separate abode of rest and peace in which Abraham now is; and that what was said to Abraham did not merely refer to him personally, but had reference to his appointment as the father of many nations, to whom he was presented for imitation as the first and principal example of faith; even as God willed Himself to be called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, although he is the God of an innumerable company.”

The disembodied soul may think of itself under a bodily form.

-Vincentius,- “You must not, however, suppose that I say all this as if denying it to be possible that the soul of a dead man, like a person asleep, may think either good or evil thoughts in the similitude of his body. For, in dreams, when we suffer anything harsh and troublesome, we are, of course, still ourselves; and if the distress does not pass away when we awake, we experience very great suffering. But to suppose that they are veritable bodies in which we are hurried, or flit about hither and thither in dreams, is the idea of a person who has thought only carelessly on such subjects; for it is in fact mainly by these imaginary sights that the soul is proved to be non-corporeal; unless you choose to call even the objects which we see so often in our dreams, besides ourselves, bodies, such as the sky, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars, and rivers, mountains, trees, or animals. Whoever takes these phantoms to be bodies, is incredibly foolish; although they are certainly very like bodies. Of this character also are those phenomena which are demonstrably of divine significance, whether seen in dreams or in a trance. Who can possibly trace out or describe their origin, or the material of which they consist? It is, beyond question, spiritual, not corporeal. Now things of this kind, which look like bodies, but are not really corporeal, are formed in the thoughts of persons when they are awake, and are held in the depths of their memories, and then out of these secret recesses, by some wonderful and ineffable process, they come out to view in the operation of our memory, and present themselves as if palpably before our eyes. If, therefore, the soul were a material body, it could not possibly contain so many things and such large forms of bodily substances in its scope of thought, and in the spaces of its memory; for, according to your own definition, ‘it does not exceed this external body in its own corporeal substance.’

Possessing, therefore, no magnitude of its own, what capacity has it to hold the images of vast bodies, spaces, and regions? What wonder is it, then, if it actually itself appears to itself in the likeness of its own body, even when it appears without a body? For it never appears to itself in dreams with its own body; and yet in the very similitude of its own body it runs hither and thither through known and unknown places, and beholds many sad and joyous sights. I suppose, however, that you really would not, yourself, be so bold as to maintain that there is true corporeity in that form of limb and body which the soul seems to itself to possess in dreams. For at that rate that will be a real mountain which it appears to ascend; and that a material house which it seems to enter; and that a veritable tree, with real wood and bulk, beneath which it apparently reclines; and that actual water which it imagines itself to drink. All the things with which it is conversant, as if they were corporeal, would be undoubted bodies, if the soul were itself corporeal, as it ranges about amongst them all in the likeness of a body.”

Prophetic visions.

-Vincentius._ “Not every semblance of a body is itself a body. Fall asleep and you will see this; but when you awake again, carefully discern what it is you have seen. For in your dreams you will appear to yourself as if endued with a body; but it really is not your body, but your soul; nor is it a real body, but the semblance of a body. Your body will be lying on the bed, but the soul walking; the tongue of your body will be silent, but that of your soul in the dream will talk; your eyes will be shut, but your soul will be awake; and, of course, the limbs of your body stretched out in your bed will be alive, not dead. Consequently that congealed form, as you regard it, of your soul is not yet extracted, as it were, out of its sheath; and yet in it is seen the whole and perfect semblance of your fleshly frame.

Belonging to this class of similitudes of corporeity, which are not real bodies, though they seem to be such, are all those appearances which you read of in the Holy Scriptures in the visions even of the prophets, without, however, understanding them; by which are also signified the things which come to pass in all time-present, past, and future. You make mistakes about these, not because they are in themselves deceptive, but because you do not accept them as they ought to be taken. For in the same apocalyptic vision where "the souls of the martyrs" are seen, there is also beheld "a lamb as it were slain, having seven horns:" there are also horses and other animals figuratively described with all consistency; and lastly, there were the stars falling, and the earth rolled up like a book; nor does the world, in spite of all, then actually collapse. If therefore we understand all these things wisely, although we say they are true apparitions, yet we do not call them real bodies.” 

“Thank you Brother Aurelius. What a blessing it is to have you, Brother Thomas and so many others as our Brothers and Sisters in the Kingdom... I strongly encourage our readers to read your entire work, A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin.”[17] 

Brother Thomas, is man's soul of Divine substance?

-Brother Raymond:-“  . . . it is evidently false that the soul is of the substance of God.[18]

Was the human soul produced before the body?

-Brother Raymond,-

“ . . . it is clear that God made the first things in their perfect natural state, as their species required. Now the soul, as a part of human nature, has its natural perfection only as united to the body. Therefore it would have been unfitting for the soul to be created without the body.”[19]

Brother Thomas, do all the powers remain in the soul when separated from the body?

-Brother Raymond,- “ . . . As we have said already (Articles [5], 6, 7) all the powers of the soul belong to the soul alone as their principle. But some powers belong to the soul alone as their subject; as the intelligence and the will. These powers must remain in the soul, after the destruction of the body. But other powers are subjected in the composite; as all the powers of the sensitive and nutritive parts. Now accidents cannot remain after the destruction of the subject. Wherefore, the composite being destroyed, such powers do not remain actually; but they remain virtually in the soul, as in their principle or root.”

“As I described earlier Brother Thomas, my mind was in full operation, actively at work. My mantle was at the service of my spirit and not my body and, the energy cells were simply on standby as were the hair-like threads in my spirit. Further, I was neither thirsty or hungry, hot or cold etc. I felt nothing of what I would normally feel if in my body.”