Between Death and Resurrection, the 'anima separata'
The Holy Scriptures clearly teach that a person does not perish in death. However, some continuation of human existence after death is not only a standpoint of the Scriptures but also permeates human culture in various forms and opinions. This is indicated by the oldest burial customs, various mythologies, philosophies. At the same time, the death of a human and the death of an animal are both the death of a living being, but the animal completely perishes at the end of its life, and no longer exists in any form. The fate of the human body in death is the same as that of an animal body: after life ends, the body decays. But the Scriptures and the creeds speak of the resurrection of the body.
Based on the above, there are two seemingly contradictory points of view. On one hand, human existence somehow continues after death; on the other hand, the human body will decay in death. The some kind of continuous existence that is not severed by death, and the destruction of the body, create a tension that challenges the thinking person. The question can be posed: What does not perish in death? What ensures the continuous existence of human beings, even with death? It might be said that the Scriptures do not actually undertake to fully conceptually resolve this tension, and so we do not have to deal with it. However, this question occupied the intellectual life of the era in which Christianity spread. There were answers to the question that are no longer reconcilable with the Scriptures, with Christianity. One such answer, for example, is the Platonic doctrine of the transmigration of souls, according to which continuity is ensured by something, the soul, which remains the same through various lives, deaths, and rebirths. Therefore, the question is still an important question even though the Scriptures themselves do not provide a specific conceptual answer. Christian tradition had to answer the question in a more definite form. The vocabulary of the Scriptures contains the appropriate words to answer the question: the Scriptures use the words "body" and "soul." The Greek solution also builds on these words. In the environment that embraced Christianity, Platonic dualistic thinking was present. According to this, two worlds exist, one is the pure world of ideas characterized by permanence and changelessness. The other world is the ever-changing world around us, an imperfect reflection, a shadow of the perfect, unchanging world of ideas. This duality also applies to humans: humans are the unity of two distinctly separate things. One of them is the immortal soul, which is attracted to the pure world of ideas. The other is the mortal body, the prison of the soul. Thus, the words of the Scriptures also had a philosophical equivalent in this case. However, the philosophical meaning may also have contained things that were no longer compatible with the Scriptures, with Christianity. For example, Christianity explicitly rejects reincarnation. Nevertheless, the main features of the Platonic approach did contain the solution: the human being is a combination of soul and body; in death, the body perishes, but the soul continues to exist. According to the Platonic solution, the body is the prison of the soul, the coexistence of body and soul is a forced coexistence, which some theologians even considered punishment. These are "additions" to the Platonic approach that are difficult to fit into the worldview of the Scriptures.
The scholastic philosophy and theology, primarily relying on Aristotle, articulated the unity of body and soul more perfectly. According to Aristotle, there is no separate world of ideas; instead, these ideas are replaced by forms that are forms of matter, which do not exist independently outside the matter. The unity of body and soul also consists of the unity of matter and the form that shapes it, but unlike other material forms, this form is not of material origin. Therefore, the soul is the form of the body, which makes the matter human, that "animates" the body. In the case of plants and animals, the form shaping the matter is also called soul, but this form no longer has any independent existence after the demise of the organism; it is only a form that exists in matter. In the case of humans, however, the form is of a spiritual nature, capable of existing without the formed matter. In death, the soul's shaping of matter ceases, and it exists as a separated soul, or 'anima separata'. In the resurrection, the soul, as a result of divine intervention, will again function as a form shaping matter, becoming the essential form of the glorified body. This approach has been accepted by Catholic theology and even appeared in the formulation of several dogmas. For example, the Council of Vienne (1312) declared heretical the view that the soul is not the essential form of the body. Regarding the concept of 'anima separata', we also mention that Pope John XXII (1316-1334) believed that the saved, after death, do not partake in the bliss of God's direct vision (visio Dei beatifica) until the Last Judgment. Pope John XXII is an example of a pope who represented a wrong theological opinion, but did not make it an irrevocable teaching of the whole Church. Before his death in 1334, he retracted this opinion. His successor, Pope Benedict XII, declared it a teaching of the Church that the saved immediately after their death partake in God's beatific vision.
Protestant theology rejects the concept of 'anima separata'. Some opinions characterize the period from death to resurrection as some dream-like existence. Others believe that death leads to total annihilation, followed by recreation at the resurrection. After the Second Vatican Council, several Catholic theologians found the concept of 'anima separata' unsuitable for describing the state after death.
So, a feature of newer theology is that it rigidly rejects the scholastic approach along with Platonic ideas. This rejection may sometimes stem from a lack of deeper understanding of scholastic theology. Several attempts to ensure continuity between death and resurrection try to identify death and resurrection in a certain sense. They talk, for example, about man leaving the earthly space and time system at death and connecting with the entire cosmos (Karl Rahner). Gisbert Greshake speaks of resurrection in death. The problem with these theories is that they cannot satisfactorily explain the difference between Jesus's resurrection or Mary's Assumption and the resurrection of other people. If the resurrection is in death, then the bodies of the dead should be in a similar state to the resurrected body of Jesus or the body of the assumed Mary. This contradicts everyday experience, where the bodies of the dead decompose. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter issued in 1979, draws attention to the problems of these views. We also mention that Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI, before he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) criticized these views and essentially accepted the standpoint of traditional theology.
Now let's examine the concept of 'anima separata' more closely, presenting the true content of this concept, which its opponents sometimes do not fully understand. According to Catholic theological tradition, continuity between death and resurrection is ensured by the soul separated from the body, known as the "anima separata." According to scholastic anthropology, a person is identical neither with his body nor with his soul. A human being is a composite entity. (The only completely simple being, free from all composition, is God.) The components of this composition are the body and soul. This composition signifies a close and intimate connection. The components are not physically but metaphysically different from each other. This means that their difference is a real difference, but it cannot be demonstrated by any physical, chemical, or biological method. The basis of this difference is that in humans, there are two aspects that cannot be identified without giving up the principle of contradiction. On one hand, humans have a body similar to that of animals, which is subject to decay. On the other hand, humans transcend this level in knowledge and love; their knowledge surpasses the constraints of time and place linked to sensation, and their love is a love that demands never to end. Therefore, in humans, there are two components in close unity with each other, presupposing each other but really different: the body and the soul, whose relationship is described by the relationship between matter and form. Death is not just the death of the body but the death of the whole person, as this close and inner unity disintegrates.
The scholastic conception of the unity of body and soul is fundamentally different from the Platonic conception. According to the Platonists, the relationship between the soul and the body is not this close and internal relationship. For example, a prisoner and his prison do not form an essential unity; this is merely some accidental, external unity. According to the scholastics, the body and soul together constitute human nature. For the Platonist, earthly life is punishment, and death is liberation. The scholastic view agrees with the standpoint of Scripture, which says that earthly life is not the punishment, but death is, as it breaks the natural unity of human nature. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). In the original state of holiness and justice, the first parents were exempt from death. After original sin, however, Adam and his descendants lost this gift from God. For the Platonist, the resurrection needs an explanation since it re-establishes the unity of body and soul, but in earthly life, the body played the role of a prison. For scholastic theology, the resurrection is the restoration of the natural state of man, the natural unity of soul and body.
The Platonic view does not raise questions about the state after death, as in this state, the soul, freed from the prison of the body, can live its true, fitting life. However, the scholastic view must face the question of how it is possible for the soul to live without the body, as in earthly life, the soul's spiritual functions were so closely connected with the material functions that the disappearance of the latter needs an explanation for the soul's mode of functioning without them. Is it merely that the soul remains, but its operation is suspended until the resurrection, or is the soul capable of functioning during the intervening period, not waiting in some "hibernated," dream-like state? According to the Catholic position, the blessed, from the moment of their death (or after the sufferings of purgatory), partake in the happy life in God, even before the resurrection.
Understanding the concept of the separate soul is facilitated if we examine this concept in its broader context, within the order of creation. Created existence is limited existence, a participation in infinite divine existence, but not a possession of part of divine existence, as this would be impossible. Divine existence cannot be broken down into parts that could be possessed as if they were "shares." Existence as a part and divine existence are completely exclusive things. Participation in divine existence is rather a similarity, a participation by analogy. The created being is characterized simultaneously by a lack of perfection, imperfection, "falling short" of divine existence, and that perfection in which it resembles God. This duality is reflected in the complexity of created existence, for imperfection and perfection cannot simultaneously be asserted from the same perspective about the same thing without violating the principle of contradiction. There is therefore something in the creature that points to limitation, to the lack of complete perfection, realization. Alongside the negativity of limitation, however, the creature's existence is still such an existence whose foundation is similarity to God. We can illustrate the above by comparing the infinity of the sea to the limitation of a garden pond. The infinite sea's boundless mass of water is opposed by the garden pond's basin, which defines the water in the garden pond, making it finite. The analogy is of course not perfect, as in reality, the sea is not infinite, and the water of the sea and the garden pond is the same water (aside from some external characteristics like salinity). If we compare God to the infinite sea, we could only say that the garden pond, with its water, is only a (infinitely) distant resemblance to the sea. This imperfect analogy helps illustrate the complexity that characterizes created existence. In created existence, there is an aspect that signifies limitation, making this existence limited. This limiting, receptive aspect represents no existence in itself, but receiving existence, together with existence, constitutes the created being. The scholastics call this limiting, receptive component essence (essentia). The essence is essentially the answer to the question "what is this." Essence limits, "narrows down" existence to what is the existence of the specific thing. Existence itself is unlimited, as it includes everything that exists. In the concrete thing, however, this existence is only the existence of what the concrete thing is. The other component of complexity is existence itself (existentia), which in the case of created things means existence limited by essence. Essence and existence are components of the unity resulting from the composition of the created thing, which do not exist in themselves but still differ from each other in complexity. God's existence is unlimited existence, so in Him there is no distinction between essence and existence characteristic of created things. We cannot speak of an essence limiting God's existence; God's essence is precisely the limitlessness of His existence. We can say that in God, existence and essence are the same, and there is no complexity of differing essence and existence. This is also why we cannot fully grasp, understand God. Our finite intellect is only suitable for grasping finite, limited existence.
Creation is thus inseparable from the complexity of essence and existence. However, this does not mean that this is the only complexity present in every created being. There is another complexity, characteristic of every creature: the complexity of the individual (substance) and its attributes (accidents). Our personal experience tells us that we are not identical with our abilities, actions, properties. These are attributes for which we are the subject. This complexity has been mentioned before in a previous entry, so we will not deal with it further here. Only these complexities are characteristic of one domain of created existence. This domain is the realm of spiritual existence. The pure spiritual created beings are called angels by the Scriptures and the language of faith. Old philosophical and theological terminology called them simple substances (substantia simplex), alluding to the fact that in them there is no complexity present in the material world, of matter and form. Pure spiritual beings do not have a complexity whose breakdown would cause them to cease to exist. This does not mean that angels are independent of God in their existence. However, it does mean that they would cease to exist only if God were to withdraw existence from them, which God did not even do with Satan. Spiritual existence is therefore characterized by incorruptibility, immortality.
The other domain of created existence, the domain of material existence, is characterized by the complexity of essence and existence, as well as the complexity of (primary) matter and (essential) form. This is essentially the complexity of essence, because, for example, the nature, the essence of a dog, cannot be described without referring to either the matter or the dog-form. These two together constitute the dog. If we omit the dog-form, we could talk about any material being, while doghood without matter, as an independent form, an ideal dog, does not exist. In the complexity of matter and form, the receptive, limiting role is filled by matter. This receives the form and limits the specific realization of the form. A specific dog, limited by matter, is a dog existing at a particular time and place, one dog among many. In a specific dog, not all the abilities, possibilities of the dog form are realized. One dog, for example, has an exceptionally good sense of smell but does not run as fast as another dog. Thus, not a single specific dog realizes all the possible properties of doghood in its entirety. (In the case of angels, however, a single angel realizes the full perfection characteristic of its angelic kind. While the dog species consists of many individuals, the angelic hierarchy's kinds are constituted by a single angel, in whom all the perfections characteristic of the kind can be found.) Therefore, a single concrete dog does not realize all the possible properties associated with doghood in its entirety. (In angels, however, one angel realizes all the fullness of perfection characteristic of their angelic species. While the species of dog consists of many individuals, the various ranks of angelic beings are each constituted by a single angel in whom all the perfections characteristic of that rank can be found.)
Material existence is characterized by constant change. Change can be a change in properties. This kind of change is not a peculiarity of material existence; such change is possible in the case of spiritual beings as well. However, the other type of change is characteristic only of material existence. In this change, the essential change, it is not some property of the existing that changes, but what happens is that the existing loses its former essential form; this form ceases to be the form of matter, and is replaced by another form, or other forms. The essential change signifies the destruction of the old existing and the emergence of the new existing(s). In this change, constancy is provided by matter: the old form shapes the same matter that the new form will shape. Therefore, in the case of material existence, one can no longer speak of incorruptibility, immortality, because when a form ceases to be the form of matter for various reasons, the thing existing as matter shaped by it perishes.
Human existence is a special mode of existence consisting of the connection between the spiritual world and the material world. Man is a material being, but also a spiritual being, because although his spiritual activities are conditioned by material processes, they nevertheless transcend matter and cannot be reduced from it. As a result of human material existence, one can die, but due to spiritual existence, one is immortal. The tension of this "dual" existence in man is resolved by scholasticism by attributing spiritual existence to one component of the complexity of material beings, the form, the soul. The form, which in pure material existence is only a form existing in matter, in the case of man, is a form that also has independent existence, according to scholastic terminology, forma subsistens. Thus, this form, in addition to being the form of the body, also belongs to the realm of spiritual existence. The spiritual existent is generally characterized by the expression forma subsistens, because the word "form" is also used in a more general sense, thereby designating a thing's definiteness. In the case of material existents, this means definiteness accepted by matter, while in the case of spiritual existents, it refers to definiteness without a recipient.
The independent existence of the human soul as a form is not a "novelty" that appears at the moment of death, but this has been the case for man since the moment of biological conception. At that moment, the matter is not shaped by some animal-like form, but by the human soul created by God, which is a spiritual, immortal reality. Thus, man is a special existent compared to the beings of the material world, the animal world: in his case, the existence of the form that shapes and vitalizes matter does not cease when its matter-shaping activity ceases, because it is an independently existing form, forma subsistens. However, it is also true that in man the connection between body and soul is not an incidental, external connection, but an essential one, in contrast to the Platonic approach. The independent existence of the human soul does not exclude that man is essentially a unity of body and soul, and the cessation of this unity is present in the independently existing soul as a deficiency. Scholasticism refers to this with the expression "incomplete substance," "substantia incompleta." The independently existing human soul does not lose its relation to the matter it shaped. This relation actually ensures that after death individual human souls exist, not some universal, impersonal soul (mind) in which individual people only share. This latter position was the stance of medieval Averroism, refuted by Thomas Aquinas in his work "On the Unity of Intellect against the Averroists" (De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas).
The above (perhaps somewhat lengthy) introduction has presented the order of creation within which the concept of 'anima separata' can be understood. In man, indeed, the unity of two different worlds is realized. This unity breaks up in the punishment of sin, in death, but the unifying, vitalizing component, the human soul, continues to live, awaiting the restoration of unity in the resurrection. However, during the period of waiting, the human soul's abilities must function in a manner different from their previous mode of operation. The functioning of human spiritual abilities before death was realized through modes of operation characteristic of the material world, animals. For example, our knowledge starts from the data provided by the senses; without such data, there is no human knowledge. Any hindrance to physical, material conditions also hinders the spiritual functioning of the living human in the body. In death, however, the material conditions necessary for operation disappear, and the mode of operation of the human soul becomes similar to that of the angels. Thus, death is not followed by some dream, unconsciousness, but by the life of the soul.
Now let's examine how this life is possible for the "materially accustomed" human soul.
According to Catholic dogma, this period is not characterized by a dream-like existence. Immediately after death, in particular judgment, a person's final, eternal fate is determined, and the soul's life continues accordingly. Existence between death and resurrection is the existence of the soul separated from the body, the existence of the 'anima separata'. The existence of 'anima separata' is a pure spiritual existence; in this state, the soul lacks sensory organs and generally those material processes that were indispensable for the soul's functioning in earthly life. In this state, the "materially accustomed" soul operates in some sense like angels. This entry deals with this operation. It should be noted that revelation does not contain direct information on our subject; the following are primarily the results of theological thinking. So the question is that the believing mind, starting from philosophy and anthropology, tries to answer the questions that arise during the intellectual grasp of revelation, which are not directly answered by revelation. This may sometimes be necessary to filter out incorrect answers that contradict revelation.
Before further discussing the subject, a distinction must be made between the natural life of the 'anima separata' and the face-to-face vision of God, of which the blessed are partakers. In this direct vision, the blessed see the creatures in God, as their Creator, thus gaining knowledge about them. In what follows, we will deal primarily not with this supernatural life but with the natural life, knowledge of the 'anima separata'. Instead of the adjective "natural," we should actually use the expression "beyond nature," because the "natural" functioning belonging to human nature is the functioning of the body and soul as one. Questions rightly arise concerning the beyond-natural functioning of 'anima separata,' because the damned, those suffering in purgatory, lack God's beatific vision. Besides, participation in divine life, the face-to-face vision of God, does not end the beyond-natural life of the 'anima separata.'
We must now examine the life of 'anima separata' within the whole order of creation. This is necessary because, by its nature, man connects the two realms of existence, the spiritual and material realms. As it was mentioned, spiritual existence has three levels. The highest level is the existence of God, who is the simple, complete existence, whose existence is not a shared existence but existence itself. The second group includes those purely spiritual beings that are free from all material-related complexity (but not free from the complexity of essence and existence). In the language of Scripture and faith, we call these beings angels. The lowest level of spiritual existence is human existence. This existence is by nature existence in matter.
The fullest form of knowledge, unattainable by creatures, is realized in God. The object of God's knowledge is Himself; in Him, there is no duality of the knowing subject and the known object. In Him, these form a complete unity; God does not differ from the divine intellect knowing Himself. In God, the knower, the knowing, and the known are the same; these are identical with God Himself. (We note that revelation hints that God's life is the life of the Trinity. Following Augustine, Latin theology compares the Son's origin from the Father to birth in the sense of knowledge. The Holy Spirit's origin from the Father and the Son is likened to the awakening of love in the will. Theology tries to approach God's hidden inner life, the life of the trinitarian persons, using analogies.) The identity of the knower, the knowing, and the known does not break even when it concerns God's knowledge of creation. God's knowledge of Himself includes the knowledge of what possibilities there are for the infinite divine perfection to be reflected in some finite being different from God. God also knows the free decision of His will by which one of these is chosen in creation. Thus, the complete and perfect knowledge of creation is not different from God's inner (and only) knowledge. No creature is capable of reaching such knowledge of created things.
In the knowledge of created spiritual beings, there is already the presence of the knower and the known, the duality of the subject and the object. This duality does not entirely disappear even in self-knowledge. Regarding creation itself, we can talk about two kinds of existence. One type of existence is the existence of created things, distinct from God and created spiritual beings, as knowing subjects. The other existence is the existence of the knowledge of creation in the intellect. In God's case, this knowledge does not differ from the divine intellect, from God Himself. In the case of spiritual beings, this knowledge results from their participation in God's existence (in an analogical sense), which includes participation in the divine intellect and knowledge. In their case, however, this knowledge is not the creator's knowledge of creation, but the creature's knowledge of itself and other creatures. For the angels, this participation means that, by nature, from the first moment of their existence, they know everything that, according to God's plans, they can know. These knowledges are present from the first moment of existence, they do not develop. In this knowledge, there is self-knowledge, knowledge of other spiritual beings, and knowledge of the created material world and its existences. The statement of Thomas Aquinas (ST I q.12 a.4) generally applies to knowledge: "cognitum est in cognoscente secundum modum cognoscentis," meaning the knowledge is in the knowing subject according to the mode of the knower. In the case of an angel, this means that knowledge is purely spiritual, intuitive knowledge. The perfection of this knowledge is consistent with the angel's position in the angelic hierarchy. However, like all natural knowledge of an intelligent creature, it does not include direct knowledge, or vision, of God. God is present in this knowledge only as the creator of creatures. Finite nature is not capable of directly knowing the infinite God without God's special, elevating assistance. In this regard, angelic knowledge is characterized by the same features as human knowledge.
At the lowest level of intellectual existence stands the human being, whose participation in divine intellect is the weakest. The human being – contrary to the opinions of Plato and Descartes – does not possess innate knowledge (ideae innatae). A human only has the ability, the readiness, to acquire knowledge. The path to acquiring knowledge begins with the processing of sensory data, the result of which is intellectual knowledge. Human knowledge is characterized by development, the repeated return to sensory data. However, this knowledge itself is already intellectual knowledge, resulting in a certain level of understanding of material existence. But this understanding is impossible without the establishing cause of the material world, God; therefore, human knowledge extends to recognizing the existence of God as well.
With the detachment from the material world following death, however, the connection that was the condition for human knowledge ceases to exist. Therefore, after death, a new mode of human cognition begins that is spiritual knowledge without material conditions, similar to the knowledge of angels. The question of the mode of cognition of the 'anima separata' is dealt with by Thomas Aquinas in the 89th question of the first part of the Summa Theologiae. We will build on the findings found there. After death, the soul is not recreated, but a change occurs within it as a result of God's direct activity, through which cognition takes place by divine understanding, similar to that of angels, without material conditions. At death, the soul's abilities and capacities for knowledge through the material world cease to function, but the soul gains new knowledge that is purely spiritual, intuitive knowledge. However, it cannot be said that these pieces of knowledge would be the most suitable for the human soul according to Platonic conception. According to the previously cited principle, knowledge is present in the subject of cognition according to its mode of existence. The human being is essentially a unity of body and soul, so knowledge that begins with sensation and presupposes material operation is most appropriate for him; therefore, the knowledge obtained through the temporary, "angelic" mode of cognition is vague, too general due to a weaker understanding of details. This is not characteristic of the anima separata's knowledge of itself. While on earth, man's reflection on himself was an accompaniment to his knowledge of the outer world; now it is present as an independent, more complete knowledge. In the knowledge of itself, the soul also knows God as its creator. In general, we can say that the most distinctive object of the anima separata's cognition is itself and other souls separated from the body; it has only a more obscure knowledge of the higher-order angels. The soul, being separated from the material world at death, no longer has knowledge of its events. However, the blessed who see God face-to-face can know the created world, the things in it, and the events of this world in the creator's view. According to Thomas Aquinas, the intellectual knowledge acquired in earthly life does not disappear at death. These pieces of knowledge continue to exist, adapting to the "new environment" and becoming part of it.
So far, we have dealt with the intellectual activity and cognition of the anima separata. Regarding the soul's other capacity, the will, it can be said that the time for willful decisions closes with death. The will of the anima separata is no longer capable of new decisions; the time of trial ends along with earthly life. The last conscious decision for or against God in earthly life becomes fixed forever. Of course, this decision is not independent of the whole life, but God's grace may grant the grace of conversion even in the last moments, as happened with the good thief. However, it would be a sign of presumption if someone were to postpone conversion until the end of life. With the words of the Hail Mary, we ask Mary, the Mother of God, to pray for us now and at the hour of our death.