Are Angels Made Of Pure Spirit Or Subtle Matter?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1237953' date='Apr 10 2007, 03:46 PM']Metaphysical, not metaphysics. Meta-physics being the branch of science. Meta-physical being "beyond physical" it is neo-platonic in form. Im sure it is the same as purely spiritual, just a proto/catholic term problem for me.[/quote]

Metaphysics is a branch of science, if you include philosophy as a science (which I do). However, metaphysics is not "beyond physical" by definition. Metaphysics seeks to find the reason/motivation behind physics. Once you figure out, for example that when you combine Sodium and Chlorine, you get table salt. The next logical question is to ask "why" and "how". Metaphysics and physics as is understood today blend together pretty well. Meta actually means "after", so metahysics means "after physics". Metaphysics does discuss spiritual realities, but isn't limited to that field. Wikipedia gives a descent introductory explenation. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics[/url] "Beyond physical" would be "superphysics". It sounds like you may be referring to what is normally called "paraphysics".

I am studying metaphysics in my philosophical theology class. I'm not an expert, but I know a basic definition for it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

There was a time when I would have affirmed the view of St. Bonaventure, but currently I know not.

I know longer know what "spirit" even means, nor do I quite know what "matter" means. I have no capacity to coherently approach the question since I'm not even clear on the basic terms and concepts.

I know more or less what the terms and concepts mean in the context of dominant medieval Roman Catholic Theology, and I could approach the question from within this framework, but I would not be able to say that this was my view or that a definitive answer had been reached.

What I would affirm is that angelic beings are dimensional. It is easy enough to argue this point, and it implies a threshold of differentiation or individuation which transcends corporeal substances. But I nonetheless lack the confidence to say for sure since I don't really understand the concepts involved.

[N/A Gone]

I'va always understood that when we speak of Angels as metaphysical we imply they are beyond physical. Think in the platonic way that our physical is only a reflection of what more can be. Can I drink Juice out of that cowbell fluff? Ignoring the semantic terms. Is my understanding of purely spiritual in relation to spiritual make sense?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1238085' date='Apr 10 2007, 06:31 PM']I'd have to get out my notes, but I do believe he thought angels had a material aspect to them (one of the few things I don't agree with him about).[/quote]
For Bonaventure the concept of 'matter' is different than that which we tend to have. Modern people tend to think of matter as corporeal bodies that can be classified in one of two basic categories: 1. Constituent particles; 2. Aggregate systems of particles.
Of course a trained physicist will have a more sophisticated view, but the general cultural belief (as I've observed it anyway) is a pretty straightforward form of atomistic materialism.
What Bonaventure means by 'matter' is something quite different from the popular idea of today. To get at an understanding requires a knowledge of his theory of the Divine Ideas and his reconciliation of the one and the many and of contrary essences (things which I cannot delve into at the moment but I can recommend texts if anyone so desires). I imagine there are those who would dispute this, but I was at one time a big Bonaventure dawg, and according to my reading it would not be entirely improper to say that the concept of matter, in broadest terms, is the substrate of actual contingent reality. It becomes impossible to assert some sort of radical immateriality without sacrificing contingency. Finite/contingent beings, in essence all created essences, are expressed in materiality. To be without matter is to be without limit. But again, I stress that he means more than what we mean by the term 'matter'. The material principle of angels and souls for example is qualified as 'spiritual matter' [[i]materia spiritualis[/i]] because they are incorporeal. If this sounds like a contradiction, something material yet incorporeal, then I would say you are not approaching Bonaventure on his terms.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1238669' date='Apr 11 2007, 10:00 AM']Metaphysics is a branch of science, if you include philosophy as a science (which I do). However, metaphysics is not "beyond physical" by definition. Metaphysics seeks to find the reason/motivation behind physics. Once you figure out, for example that when you combine Sodium and Chlorine, you get table salt. The next logical question is to ask "why" and "how". Metaphysics and physics as is understood today blend together pretty well. Meta actually means "after", so metahysics means "after physics". Metaphysics does discuss spiritual realities, but isn't limited to that field. Wikipedia gives a descent introductory explenation. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics[/url] "Beyond physical" would be "superphysics". It sounds like you may be referring to what is normally called "paraphysics".

I am studying metaphysics in my philosophical theology class. I'm not an expert, but I know a basic definition for it.[/quote]
I personally do not consider metaphysics to be a branch of science proper since it is not an empirical field of inquiry but is fundamentally a priori in character and does not conform to contemporary standards of scientific methodology (even as ambiguous and goofy as those can be sometimes). I am comfortable describing metaphysics as a science in the broader sense of a body of knowledge. I would even like to think of metaphysics as a formal science, but I nonetheless tend to use the single term 'science' synonymously with ‘natural science’.
While the word 'metaphysics' mean 'after' physics, this is more or less because Aristotle's Metaphysics came after the Physics, but in fact the subject matter and purpose of the text is in one respect to give a systematic foundation to the Physics and can thus ironically be said to be conceptually 'before' physics.
Empirical methods of inquiry such as physics require a metaphysical foundation before they become possible. Concepts such as matter, energy, time, space, potentiality, cause, etc. precede formal scientific inquiry (well, I admit that they can and do often develop reciprocally, but you know what I mean).

I think I'm getting nit picky and lame. If this post is stupid please bear in mind that I was up all night working and I'm radically sleep deprived.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1238072' date='Apr 10 2007, 06:26 PM']What was St. Bonaventure's opinion?[/quote]
In simplest terms, that hylomorphic composition is in effect what distinguishes created being from Uncreated Being. His take on this stuff is often lumped together with other similar metaphysical perspectives under the designation universal hylomorphism.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1239081' date='Apr 11 2007, 04:47 PM']In simplest terms, that hylomorphic composition is in effect what distinguishes created being from Uncreated Being. His take on this stuff is often lumped together with other similar metaphysical perspectives under the designation universal hylomorphism.[/quote]

I see.

[StColette]

I'm more along the lines of Bonaventure Theology