bi partate, tri partate, immortal,, eternal..... huh?
continuing for merlin.......
http://www.mugglematters.com/2006/01/same-side-of-two-coins-complimentary.html
http://www.mugglematters.com/2006/01/same-side-of-two-coins-complimentary.html
posted by jkr2 | 2:36 pm
4 Comments:
Ok,
I wasn't sure how far afield I was getting but just wanted to make sure.
Anyway, on the whole thing of whether the human being is 3 "parts" or 2 "parts" (to recap for those just tuning in :) ) ... the question is whether the soul is a distinct "part," a substantial "part" (ie a separate substance) as the spirit and body are (2 substances of distinctly different orders, an individual spiritual substance, ie an individual spirit, and a material substance, the body).
The terms of the theories - "bipartite" being the idea that there are only 2 "parts," body and spirit, and "tripartite" being the idea that there are 3 substantial parts: body, spirit and soul - hold some clues here.
The corollary here is with Catholic Tradition on Divine Revelation. And that is a capital "T" for it involves definitions from universal councils of the Catholic Church, particularly Trent and Vatican II. The particular area of importance is that of Revelation coming to us through Scripture and Tradition. Christ is the full Revelation of God (covered in the first few paragraphs of Dei Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), but this "one, singular Deposit of the Faith" comes down to us through various ways throughout history, through Scripture and Tradition.
The thing about these 2 councils is that at both there was a camp pushing strongly for a material (is substantial)definition on Tradition, and they pushed for it by pushing a particular phrase (trying to get it codified in the text of concilair declarations, and thus an official part of the infallible Tradition of the Church), a phrase which was based in the same term used in the biPARTite and triPARTite theories of the human person, the term "part" (which has a vary substantial/material connotation).
The term they pushed was, in Latin, "partem et partem," meaning "into part and into part," meaning that part of the Deposit of Faith went into Scripture and part into Tradition (by extension, mutually exclusive and materially distinct/different parts).
(The Latin term itself arose from a mistranslation of a Greek text from St Basil, the Greek Church Father)
Brief Latin Explanation: the term "partem" is in the accusative case, which is the case often used to show movement or progression. Many prepositions can take their object in either the ablative case or accusative - so when a prep such as "in" has the ablative it means something like "being IN the house" [locative] and when it has the accusative it would be in a phrase like "he walked INTO the house" [locomotive] - but the cases can be used with the nouns WITHOUT prepsositions in the same way - an example would be the Latin phrase found on much American coinage, "E Pluribus Unum" - the preposition "E/Ex" usually takes ablative, and hence "from the many" but there is no preposition with "unum" but since it is in the accusative we know it means "into one" - ie "from many into one" ... thus "partem et partem" literally means "into part and into part"
Both councils rejected this language - Scripture and Tradition are really two modes, not two materially different things containing different parts. If I had to draw a corollary here with the theories of the human I would make it this, that we humans are the body, The Holy Spirit is the Spirit that gives to us life as the body of Christ, and Sacred Tradition is the Soul. If we are to speak of the Church as "x-partite" it would be us (the body) and the Holy Spirit ... but Tradition is like the soul.
For, if you read something like Yves Congar's Tradition and Traditions (Congar was a French Jesuit and a very important peritti at the Second Vatican Council, a peritti being a priest scholar coming to such an ecumenical or universal council as an advisor to a particular bishop, and he actually penned parts of Dei Verbum itself, as editings at the direction of the council fathers that were then voted into conciliar text by the bishops)you find that when you try to get down to a material definition of "Tradition" you have difficulty - where you really wind up is what Congar calls "the Monuments of Tradition" - and chief among these is the Liturgy - the liturgical life of the Church as she is animated and moved by the Holy Spirit in worship and participation in the mysteries. Tradition is the interpretive key to Scripture, ie it is the life of the Church animated by the Spirit that makes the Bible a living word.
Even councils, such as Trent and Vatican II, are seen as liturgical events, they begin and end with a liturgy of the Mass.
So, In regards to the Church you have us as the body and the Spirit as the spirit and Tradition as the soul, and in regards to Revelation you have the Bible as the body and the Spirit as the spirit and Tradition as the soul - and both we (the Church)and the Bible are "fleshings out" of Christ, the one full Revelation of the Father in the Incarnation, fleshing out the deposit in our life and witness down through the ages of this world, our lives wed to Scripture because, if you look at it ... between the Acts of the Apostles (the 1st century Church) and Revelations (The Church going into the Eschaton) you have the Epistles, the Apostles writing to individual Churches and believers concerning the actual living out of the faith (and, which there isn't space to go into here, but it is amazing how much of St Paul's imagery is taken from Judaic liturgical language and matters ... life and liturgy are bound together) - that's us. The Bible as a record of "Salvation History" does not cover just history, it is about our lives too.
I guess in the end one of my strongest gut feelings on the whole bipartite/tripartite thing is that the human soul seems far too mysteriously wonderful to be simply another "part" - I mean, the Incarnation was a new thing that broke all the molds ... many pagans already had the "body thing" down, and a number of the Greek philosophers had the "spirit/eternal thing" down (Parmenides believed that, logically, if the eternal must be the most true, which it must, then all that implies change, such as our experience through our senses, must be a lie) ... but the Incarnation was the first time there truly was a human "Golden Soul" and He really did break all the molds. I think we are still unpacking the potentials this opens for us humans, and that that is what underlies the power of works like Rowling's. I mean, I think we're all on the same page as far as why we read Harry Potter, not just to figure out the riddles and have the most accurate theory ... we read because the characters grip us, the insight JKR has into the beauty of the human soul the relationships between souls grips us ... we tremble with a mix of sorrow, admiration and love when we think of Hagrid possibly sacrificing himself making a last stand.
Anyway, a bit long - but I think I got out what I was trying to say ... eventually LOL :)
wow thanks for all of that, merlin.
didn't understand it all, but got a good gist.
;P
ok. so if we could find a less 'substantial' word for 'parts' we could say there are 3 .... ?elements? - the soul being distinct from the spirit, but not having the same solidity.
i think my confusion is in the misinterpretation that soul and spirit are interchangeable terms. but from my reading that is *not* what you are saying, yeah?
for the last passage of your post i have to offer a heartfelt *yes*.
in fact it is in a similar vein that the way you care about the characters and the interactions is the soul of the book. we have the wonderful traditions (used in a different sense of the word than you have referred to re the catholic church) and symbols that are drawn on - perhaps spirit? you have the intricate and skillfully woven plot fabric - body.
the caring is not written in. it is a response on the part of the reader, but would not be there without the animating forces offerred by the writer.
what i just wrote is either really good or absolute b*ll*cks.
be gentle with me if it's the latter.
it's late at night and i should be sleeping next to my babies, but i'm up at the computer trying to wrap my head around stuff i can't in the midst of the precious chaos of family life.
night all,
jo
Jo,
I'll have to re-read and think more, I'm pretty tired right now from taking the nightshift with my father
I'll write more later on the confusion of "spirit" and "soul" being thought of interchangabky, because it is a very common thing in the way the terms are used in modern times, whereas in the ancient mind that underlies the literature
but here Just wanted to say that even though family life seems chaotic and disabling from "getting" such things ... family life is the concrete reality that it is all about, all of these others on my part are simply feeble attempts at understanding better the realities that parents and children live in your communion of souls you have everyday, ... and the understanding is helpful if it can be furthered - but "getting it" can never substiture for living it ... all that to say that like Peeves the pest to the masters of mayhem (or in your case, chaotic family life), fred and george, upon their exit - my hat is off to you and yours.
so true, merlin. so true.
the relationships are the reality. everything else is a shadow.
you must be really processing this reality at the moment, with the 'givens' being challenged in each minute.
i know when my babies were tiny and i would be feeding and holding and changing nappies i struggled with 'when is real life going to kick back in' and then i realized that *that was* real life. that moment of wiping a baby's bot-bot and giving comfort and nourishment at the breast were as real as it got. the fact that you can't 'converse' with the baby brings it down to the essential elements.
caring for someone who is ill becomes similar i imagine. the reverence is in the actions of caring. all the relationship is refined down to that touch in that moment.
that's a bit zen i guess.
warm thoughts to you and your family.
jo
Post a Comment
<< Home