The next section in Orbe:
Those who despise the full economy of man, paying attention only to that of the soul or inner man, have no qualms about "denying the salvation of the flesh." For them, hell is the world we live in. Following death, the inner man - the psyche - leaves the hells of this world, the body (resp. the flesh) - and takes flight to the supracelestial place. -
Those who say that this world, which is according to us, is indeed hell, but that this body, leaving their inner man, ascends to a heavenly place 28
They did not despise, like the heretics, the person of the Creator; nor did they discuss him as the only true God. But, far from understanding the economy linked to the sensitive body, modeled on the earth, they disqualified the mysteries of the flesh. They definitively sent the worldly body to hell, as if it had come from them 29; and they excluded the health of the flesh 30, just like the heretics. '
« 3. « And they spurn his regeneration » The adversaries of Salvation of the flesh also quarantine the mysteries linked to meat; and in particular its regeneration. Regeneratio » is a misleading term. It is frequently applied to baptism, as in Tit 3,5 31, or to the saving faith of the resurrected Christ 33, 34, efficacy to which Sta. Mary with the 'nova generatio' or virginal generation of her son 35. The anonymous ones here give the " regeneratio " , which they despise , another scope . They refer to the resurrection of the body, conceived as a new generation according to the flesh, or restitution of the human compound. Irenaeus calls it, in the same sense, "second generation."
But since he who created man from the beginning after his resolution on the earth promised him a second generation, Isaiah indeed says thus...36.
Some Paleo-Testamentary testimonies follow 37, and concludes:
Demiurge, therefore, and this Demiurge, therefore, and this, giving life to our dead bodies, as he is here to see, and promising them resurrection, and raising them from the graves and graves, and giving them incorruption... 38.
The adversaries of Irenaeus, who presumed to be orthodox, taught baptismal regeneration and 'regeneratio per fidem'; They believed in the regeneration of man through the work of Christ; They associated her virginal 'new generation' with her, in contrast to Adam's 'old genesis in mortem'. However, they rejected the "regeneration of the flesh." Just as they fought the Salus carnis, they contemptuously contested the resurrectio (= 'second generatio') that preceded it. Enemies of the Millennium 39, they condemned the perfect, corporeal resurrection to the same disregard.
* * *
<< Saying that it (the flesh) is not capable of incorruption >> 40. This is the postulate common to pagan philosophy and heretics shared by the anonymous ones. Irenaeus elaborates on his refutation, with his sights set singularly on the supposedly orthodox. He omits, however, an interesting circumstance. How could these save orthodoxy? There are indirect ways to get there: study v. gr. of ORIGINS, of the Epistle to Regino ('de resurrectione'), and of the tertullian treatise De resurrectione. Through them it will perhaps be possible to illuminate the premises that the anonymous people asserted; and on the way discover the importance of the adversaries of (SAINT JUSTINO AND) SAINT Irenaeus in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
28 V, 31,2,37ff. — Absent-mindedly attributes A. MÉHAT (Le « Lieu supracéleste » de Saint Justin à Origène, in Forma futuri 288s) to the Valentinians, what Irenaeus assigns to the alleged « orthodox ».
Origen y la 'salus carnis'
In my attempt it is enough to examine the Peri archôn (= PA). Before making known his own doctrine on the resurrection of the dead, the Alexandrian lists two others: one, of the heretics who deny the anastasis of the bodies 41; and another, from the ecclesiastics, who misunderstood it. It is important to collect the latter which coincides with the doctrine of Irenaeus:
But now we turn the conversation to some of our friends who would enter s. JUSTINE, S. Irenaeus, and TERTULIAN, who, either because of their narrowness of understanding (!) or want of explanation, introduce a very base and rejected sense of the resurrection of the body. Whom we ask, how they understand the animal body to be changed by the grace of the resurrection, and the spiritual future; and how that which is sown in infirmity will rise again in how it 'rises in glory', and that which is 'in corruption', how it is transferred to 'incorruption'.
Of course, if they believe the apostle that the body, rising 'in glory and in power and incorruption', has already been 'spiritually' accomplished, it seems absurd to say, contrary to the apostle's sense, that it should again be involved in the passions of 'flesh and blood', when the apostle clearly says: For flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption inherit incorruption.
"But how do they receive that which the Apostle says, ``We shall all be changed?''
This change is certainly to be expected according to that order which we have said above, in which without doubt it behooves us to hope for something worthy of divine grace; that we believe that the future will be in this order in which the Apostle describes a "bare grain of corn or of any other thing" sown in the earth, to which "God gives a body as he wills," when first the "grain" of the "corn" itself has been "dead."
For thus also our bodies are to be thought to fall into the earth like 'grain'; in whom that reason which contains the corporeal substance is innate, although the bodies are dead and corrupted and dispersed, yet the word of God itself, which is always saved in the substance of the body, raises them up from the earth and restores and restores them, just as the power which is in the grain of corn, after its corruption and death, repairs and restores the grain into the body of the stalk and ear.
And so, indeed, for those who will deserve to inherit the kingdom of heaven, that reason for repairing the body... By God's command, the spiritual body is repaired from the earthly and animal body, so that it can dwell in the heavens... 4.
Irenaeus and Origen were not children, nor prone to childish judgments. However, Irenaeus, a supporter of the naively understood 'Salus carnis', accuses his adversaries of being vain ('vani...omnimodo'), very light, friends of his adversaries, friends of the sole Salus animae' (resp. ' hominis interioris '), Origenists before Origenem. The Alexandrian, on the other hand, accuses the post-Irenaeum Irenaeans, supporters of the 'Salus carnis', of meager intellect or poor explanations ('pro intellectus exiguitate vel explanationis inopia'), and even of feeling lowly about the resurrection of the body. • The antagonism is even stronger in the pen of SAN JERÓNIMO. The monk of Bethlehem writes:
Therefore the ORIGEN says in several places, and especially in the four books De resurrection 45, and in the exposition of the first psalm and in the Stromata, that there is a double error in the Church; of ours, and of the heretics: "We, simple and philosophic, say that the same bones, and blood, and flesh, that is, the face and members, and the framework of the whole body, will rise again at the last day: namely, that we may walk with our feet, work with our hands, see with our eyes, and hear with our ears , and let us carry around an insatiable belly, and a stomach that digests food. And it follows that he who we believe to be, tells us that we must eat and drink, digest dung, pour out humor, marry wives, and beget children. For where are the genitals, if there will be no marriage? Where are the teeth, if the food is not to be ground? Where is the stomach and the food, if both this and that are destroyed next to the Apostle? himself again crying out: Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor corruption incorruption [34]." He claims that we are innocent and innocent. "But the heretics, on whose side are Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, Manes, the name of madness, completely deny the resurrection of the flesh and the body: and to give salvation only to the soul, and in vain to say that we will rise again after the example of the Lord, when the Lord himself also rose in phantasm: and not only his resurrection, but also his very birth, that is to say, is supposed to be seen more than it was. But to dislike both opinions, to flee both Our flesh and the phantasms of the Heretics: because both sides are too much to the contrary; to others who wish to be the same as they have been [Al. they will not be]; others denying the resurrection of the body altogether. There are four elements, he says, known also to philosophers and physicians, of which all things and human bodies are compact, earth, water, air, and fire. Earth in flesh, air in breath, water in moisture, fire in heat. When, therefore, the soul has let go of this perishable and cold little body by the command of God, all things must gradually return to their parent substances: the flesh will return to the earth, the breath will be mixed with the air, the moisture will return to the abyss, the heat will fly down to the ether. And how if you throw a pint of milk and wine into the sea, and wish to separate again what is mixed: indeed the wine and milk which you have mixed will not perish, yet you cannot separate what has been melted: so the substance of flesh and blood will not perish indeed in the original materials, yet not in "to return to the former frame, and not to be entirely the same as they were." But when these things are said, the solidity of the flesh, the fluidity of the blood, the thickness of the nerves, the entanglement of the veins, and the hardness of the bones are denied.
SAINT JERONIMO is in solidarity with the doctrine of the simple, innocent and rustic', ridiculed by ORÍGENES, which is also that of SAINT Irenaeus. He accentuates, without hesitation, the absurd consequences that the Alexandrian believed he discovered in the permanence of the body with its components (bones, blood and flesh). We witness the duel between the ideology of Irenaeus (respons. JERONIMO) and that of JOHN OF JERUSALEM (respons. ORÍGENES). The Alexandrian and his followers, JERONIMO argues, return again and again to the corpus, not to the caro. They mention the resurrection of the bodies, not the flesh. Although, at first glance, they are considered synonyms, they never neglect to discuss the word expensive. They pretend to confuse them; They don't actually confuse them.
Why do you not name flesh instead, so that it means body, and indifferently now flesh, now body, so that the body is shown in the flesh and the flesh in the body? But believe me, your silence is not simple. For the definition of flesh is different from that of body: all flesh is body, not all body is flesh. It is properly flesh, which is bound together by blood, veins, bones, and nerves. Although the body is also called flesh, it is sometimes called ethereal or airy, because it is not subject to touch or sight, and is generally visible and tangible.50
SAN JERÓNIMO chooses the shooting range very well. According to Stoic categories, corpus (soμα) was synonymous with substantia (ovoía), or hyle (resp. Úло × ɛíμɛvov). In a generic sense it was equally applicable to spiritual, ethereal, aerial, invisible diabolical natures and to earthly or visible flesh and blood natures. No Stoic would have confused the caro (σáp) with the corpus (so μa), the species with the genus. In its application to dogma, ORIGIN invoked the resurrection of bodies. He avoided, very knowingly, the term resurrection of the flesh. He was thus free to attribute to the revived believers an invisible ovcia, or to call soμα the congenital substance of any creatures. While the 'anastasis of the flesh' committed him, according to the belief of the 'simple', to the resurrection of a tiny corruptible matter. The antithesis between IRENEAUS AND ORIGINS starts from the very concept of origin: corpus (oμα) or caro. The bishop of Lion adheres to the symbol51 and makes the resurrection of the sarx, obviously and crudely understood, the object of apostolic preaching. He anticipates SAN JERONIMO even in terms.
According to this, flesh is properly bound together by blood, veins, bones, and nerves. 52
AND Irenaeus:
thirst for that disposition which is according to the true man, which consists of flesh and nerves and bones 53
The monk of Bethlehem, usually inspired by the De resurrectione tertulianeo for his Contra Johannem Hierosolymitanum, is closer to Irenaeus than to the African for his declaration of caro. ORIGINS Combat "abjectum sensum de resurrectione corporis" the resurrection of the flesh, obviously understood. There is no difficulty, starting from the generic and stoically conceived oua, in assigning to the rational psyche (resp. intellect, inner man...) a body 54: earthly and carnal in this world, celestial and invisible in the other. The ratio insita (σπερματικὸς λόγος) remains in both stages, which as a ἰδίως ποιόν characterizes the human individual and keeps him safe, through qualitative changes. .
Say ratio insita, εἶδος, ἰδίως ποιόν interests the personal rigor, regardless of the ephemeral regime. The earthly stage, incompatible with man in God, gives way to the invisible celestial regime. 'Ipso facto the earthly substance disappears, the expensive, foreign to the person of the essential man (voc) 55. Symbolized in the 'tunics of skin' with which the Creator clothed man, in his exile to the world (Gen 3,21) 56, remains definitively in exile, with the return of man to God.
..................
A similar result is reached by studying the final fate of corporeal nature.
God created 'per se' (лρoŋyoчμéνws) the intellective nature. The visible world came about following the fall of the 'intellects'. If by axiom the final regime must respond to that of the beginning, with the return of the rationals to the point of origin (åñonatάotaois), the visible world will disappear. However, the dogma of the resurrection of the body prevents this. The Alexandrian indicates two ways of solution: A progressive annihilation of the corporeal matter B - sublimation of the somatic nature, from hylic to spiritual: the corporeal substance perseveres, with a change of only qualities. - Why does the Apostle call visible things 'temporal' (2 Cor 4:18) - does ORIGIN ask?
Is it because there will be absolutely nothing after this in all those future spaces and ages, in which that dispersion of one principle and division is restored to one and the same end and similarity: or is it because their attitude is indeed corrupted in every way...? ―――
They are said to be temporary, he answers - not because they will disappear one day, but because they will change their quality.
For if the heavens are changed, certainly that which is changed does not perish; and if the habit of this world passes away (1 Cor 7:13), the extermination or destruction of material substance is not shown in every way, but there is a certain change of quality, and a transformation of the habit 58.
It was, apparently, the solution of SAN IRENEO 59. But going to ratify it with new lines he ends:
Another will perhaps say that at that end all corporeal substance will be purified and purified, so that it can be understood in the manner of the etheric and celestial of a certain purity and sincerity. However, only God knows with certainty how things will turn out, and if those who are his friends through Christ and the Holy Spirit 61.
Dissatisfied with the Irenean solution, perhaps disagreeing with the permanence, in a divine atmosphere, of the hylic ousia, he first insists on volatilizing it; and suspicious immediately of getting there, he chooses to reserve the matter to God and his friends.
SPANISH ORIGINAL
Los que menosprecian la economía cabal del hombre , atentos únicamente a la del alma u hombre interior , no tienen reparo en « denegar la salvación de la carne » . Para ellos , los infiernos son el mundo en que vivimos . A raíz de la muerte, el hombre interior - la psique - abandona los infiernos este mundo , el cuerpo ( resp . la carne ) — y remonta el vuelo al lugar supraceleste . -
Qui dicunt inferos quidem esse hunc mundum qui sit secundum nos 27 , interiorem autem hominem ipsorum derelinquentem hic corpus in supercaelestem ascendere locum 28
No despreciaban , como los herejes , la persona del Creador ; ni le discutían como único verdadero Dios . Mas , lejos de entender la economía vinculada al cuerpo sensible , modelado de la tierra , descalificaban los misterios de la carne . Remitían definitivamente a los infiernos el cuerpo mundano , como venido de ellos 29 ; y excluían la salud de la carne 30 , igual que los herejes . '
« 3. « Et regenerationem ejus spernunt » Los adversarios de la Salus carnis ponen igualmente en cuarentena los misterios vinculados a la carne ; y en particular su regeneración . Regeneratio » es término equívoco . Se aplica frecuentemente al bautismo , como en Tit 3,5 31 , o a la fecacia salvífica de Cristo 33 resucitado 34 , eficacia a la cual es asociada Sta . María con la ' nova generatio ' o generación virginal de su hijo 35 . Los anónimos otorgan aquí a la « regeneratio » , por ellos despreciada , otro alcance . Se refieren a la resurrección del cuerpo , concebida como nueva generación según la carne , o restitución del compuesto humano . IRENEO la denomina , en igual sentido , << segunda generatio"
Quoniam autem is qui ab initio condidit hominem post resolutionem ejus in terram promisit ei secundam generationem , Esaias quidem sic ait ... 36 .
Siguen algunos testimonios paleotestamentarios 37 , y concluye :
Demiurgo itaque et hic Demiurgo itaque et hic vivificante mortua corpora nostra , quemadmodum videre adest , et resurrectionem eis repromittente et de sepulchris et monumentis suscitationem et incorruptelam donante ... 38 .
Los adversarios de IRENEO , que que presumían de ortodoxos , enseñaban la regeneración bautismal y la ' regeneratio per fidem ' ; creían en la regeneración del hombre por obra de Cristo ; asociaban a ella Su ' nueva generación ' virginal , en contraste con la ' vieja genesis in mortem' de Adan. Desestimaban no obstante la « < regeneración de la carne » . Igual que combatían la Salus carnis , impugnaban con desprecio la resurrectio (= 'secunda generatio') que la precedia. Enemigos del Milenio 39 , condenaban a igual desestima la resurrección perfecta , corpórea .
* * *
<< Dicentes non eam ( carnem ) capacem esse incorruptibilitatis >> 40. He ahí el postulado común a la filosofía pagana y a los herejes compartido por los anónimos . IRENEO se extiende en su refutación , con la mira puesta singularmente en los presuntos ortodoxos . Omite empero una circunstancia de interés . ¿ Cómo podían estos salvar la ortodoxia ? Hay caminos indirectos para llegar ahí : el estudio v . gr . de ORÍGENES , de la Epístola a Regino ( ' de resurrectione ' ) , y del tratado tertulianeo De resurrectione . Por su medio será posible tal vez iluminar las premisas que hicieron valer los anónimos ; y de camino descubrir la importancia de los adversarios de ( SAN JUSTINO Y ) SAN IRENEO en los siglos II y III
28 V , 31,2,37ss . — Distraídamente atribuye A. MÉHAT ( Le « Lieu supracéleste » de Saint Justin à Origène , en Forma futuri 288s ) a los valentinianos , lo que IRENEO asigna a los presuntos « ortodoxos » .
Origen y la 'salus carnis'
A mi intento basta examinar el Peri archôn ( = PA ) . Antes de dar a conocer la doctrina propia sobre la resurrección de los muertos , enumera el Alejandrino otras dos : una , de los herejes que niegan la anástasis de los cuerpos 41 ; y otro, de los eclesiasticos, que la entendieron mal . Importa recoger esta última que coincide con la doctrina de IRENEO : - rum Nunc vero sermonem convertimus ad nonnullos nostroaquí entrarían s . JUSTINO , S. IRENEO , TERTULIANO qui vel pro intellectus exiguitate ( ! ) vel explanationis inopia valde vilem et abjectum sensum de resurrectione corporis introducunt . Quos inter- rogamus , quomodo intelligant animale corpus gratia resurrectionis immutandum , et spiritale futurum ; et quomodo quod in infirmitate seminatur , resurrecturum sentiant in quomodo 'resurgat in gloria', et quod 'in corruptione', quomodo ad 'incorruptionem' transferatur.
Quod utique si credunt apostolo quia corpus 'in gloria et in virtute et in incorruptibilitate' resurgens, 'spiritale' iam effectum sit, absurdum videtur et contra apostoli sensum dicere, id rursum 'carnis et sanguinis' passionibus implicari, cum manifeste dicat apostolus: "Quoniam caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt, neque corruptio incorruptionem possidebit.
" Sed et illud quomodo accipiunt, quod dicit apostolus quia "omnes autem immutabimur?"
Quae utique immutatio secundum illum ordinem, quem superius diximus, expectanda est, in qua sine dubio dignum aliquid divina gratia sperare nos convenit; quod futurum credimus hoc ordine quo "nudum granum frumenti aut alicuius ceterorum" in terra seminatum describit apostolus, cui "deus dat corpus prout voluit," cum prius 'granum' ipsum 'frumenti' 'mortuum fuerit'.
Ita namque etiam nostra corpora velut 'granum' cadere in terram putanda sunt; quibus insita ratio ea, quae substantiam continet corporalem, quamvis emortua fuerint corpora et corrupta atque dispersa, verbo tamen dei ratio illa ipsa, quae semper in substantia corporis salva est, erigat ea de terra et restituat ac reparet, sicut ea virtus, quae inest in grano frumenti, post corruptionem eius ac mortem reparat ac restituit granum in culmi corpus et spicae.
Et ita his quidem, qui regni caelorum hereditatem consequi merebuntur, ratio illa reparandi corporis ... Dei jussu ex terreno et animali corpore corpus reparat spiritale , quod habitare possit in caelis ... 4 .
IRENEO Y ORÍGENES no eran niños , ni propensos a juicios infantiles . No obstante , Ireneo , partidario de la ' Salus carnis ' ingenuamente entendida , acusa de vanos ( ' vani ... omnimodo ' ) , ligerísimos , a sus adversarios , amigos a sus adversarios , amigos de la sola Salus animae ' ( resp . ' hominis interioris ' ) , origenistas ante Origenem . El Alejandrino , en cambio , acusa de exiguo intelecto o de malas explicaderas ( ' pro intellectus exiguitate vel explanationis inopia ' ) , y aun de sentir bajamente sobre la resurrección del cuerpo , a los ireneanos post Irenaeum , partidarios de la ' Salus carnis ' . • El antagonismo resulta aún más fuerte en la pluma de SAN JERÓNIMO . Escribe el monje de Belén : Dicit ergo ORIGENES in pluribus locis , et maxime in libris De resurrectione quatuor 45 , et in Expositione primi psalmi et in Stromatibus, duplicem errorem versari in Ecclesia; nostrorum, et haereticorum: «Nos simplices et philosarcas dicere, quod eadem ossa, et sanguis, et caro, id est, vultus et membra, totiusque compago corporis resurgat in novissima die: scilicet ut pedibus ambulemus, operemur manibus, videamus oculis, auribus audiamus, circumferamusque ventrem insatiabilem, et stomachum cibos concoquentem. Consequens autem esse, qui ista credamus, dicere nos quod et comedendum nobis sit, et bibendum, digerenda stercora, effundendus humor, ducendae uxores, liberi procreandi. Quo enim membra genitalia, si nuptiae non erunt? Quo dentes, si cibi non molendi sunt? Quo venter et cibi si iuxta Apostolum et hic et illi destruentur? ipso iterum clamante: Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt, neque corruptio incorruptionem [34].» Haec nos innocentes et rusticos asserit dicere. «Haereticos vero, in quorum parte sunt Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, Manes, nomen insaniae, penitus et carnis et corporis resurrectionem negare: et salutem tantum tribuere animae, frustraque nos dicere ad exemplum Domini resurrecturos, cum ipse quoque Dominus in phantasmate resurrexerit: et non solum resurrectio eius, sed et ipsa nativitas, id est, putative visa magis sit, quam fuerit. Sibi autem utramque displicere sententiam, fugere se et Nostrorum carnes, et Haereticorum phantasmata: quia utraque pars in contrarium nimia sit; aliis idem volentibus se esse quod fuerint [Al. non erunt]; aliis resurrectionem corporum omnino denegantibus. Quatuor, inquit, elementa sunt, philosophis quoque nota et medicis, de quibus omnes res et corpora humana compacta sunt, terra, aqua, aer, et ignis. Terram in carnibus, aerem in halitu, aquam in humore, ignem in calore intelligi. Cum ergo anima caducum hoc frigidumque corpusculum Dei iussione dimiserit, paulatim omnia redire ad matrices suas substantias: carnes in terram relabi, halitum in aera misceri, humorem reverti ad abyssos, calorem ad aethera subvolare. Et quomodo si sextarium lactis et vini mittas in pelagus, velisque rursum separare quod mixtum est: vinum quidem et lac quod miseras non perire, non tamen posse quod fusum est separari: sic substantiam carnis et sanguinis non perire quidem in originalibus materiis, non tamen in antiquam redire compaginem, nec posse ex toto eadem esse quae fuerint.» Cum autem ista dicantur, soliditas carnium, sanguinis liquor, crassitudo nervorum, venarumque perplexio, et ossium durities denegatur.
SAN JERÓNIMO se hace solidario de la doctrina de los simples , inocentes y rústicos ' , ridiculizados por ORÍGENES , que es asimismo la de SAN IRENEO . Acentúa , sin reparo , las secuelas absurdas que creía el Alejandrino descubrir en la permanencia del cuerpo con sus componentes ( huesos , sangre y carne ) . Asistimos al duelo entre la ideología de IRENEO ( resp . s . JERÓNIMO ) y la de JUAN DE JERUSALÉN ( resp . ORÍGENES ) . El Alejandrino y sus secuaces , arguye JERÓNIMO , vuelven una y otra vez sobre el corpus , no sobre la caro . Mencionan la resurrección de los cuerpos , no de la carne . Aunque , a primera vista , les tienen por sinónimos , jamás se descuidan en discurrir sobre la caro . Fingen confundirlos ; en realidad no los confunden .
Quare non carnem potius nominas , ut corpus significes , et indifferenter nunc carnem , nunc corpus , ut corpus in carne et caro in corpore demonstretur ? Sed mihi crede , non est simplex ' silentium tuum . Alia enim carnis , alia corporis definitio est : omnis caro est corpus , non omne corpus est caro . Caro est proprie , quae sanguine , venis , ossibus nervisque constringitur . Corpus quamquam et caro dicatur , interdum tamen aethereum vel aëreum nominatur , quod tactui visuique non subjacet , et plerumque visibile est atque tangibile 50 .
SAN JERÓNIMO elige muy bien el campo de tiro . Según categorías estoicas , corpus ( soμα ) pasaba por sinónimo de substantia ( ovoía ) , o de hyle ( resp . Úло × ɛíμɛvov ) . En sentido genérico era igualmente aplicable a las naturas espirituales , etéreas , aéreas , diabólicas invisibles y a las terrenas o visibles de carne y hueso . Ningún estoico habría confundido la caro ( σáp ) con el corpus ( so μa ) , la especie con el género . En su aplicación al dogma , invocaba ORÍGENES la resurrección de los cuerpos . Rehuía , muy a sabiendas , el término resurrección de la carne . Quedaba así libre para atribuir a los creyentes redivivos una ovcía invisible , o para denominar soμα a la substancia congénita a cualesquier creaturas . Mientras la ' anástasis de la carne ' le comprometía , según la creencia de los ' simples ' , a la resurrección de una materia corruptible ínfima . La antítesis entre IRENEO Y ORÍGENES arranca del concepto mismo de origen : corpus ( oμα ) o caro. El obispo de Lion se atiene al simbolo51 y hace de la resurrección de la sarx , obvia y crudamente entendida , el objeto de la predicación apostólica . Se adelanta a SAN JERÓNIMO hasta en los términos .
Caro est proprie según éste quae sanguine , venis , ossibus nervisque constringitur.52
E IRENEO :
sed de ea dispositione quae est secundum verum hominem , quae ex carnibus et nervis et ossibus consistit 53
El monje de Belén , habitualmente inspirado en el De resurrectione tertulianeo para su Contra Johannem Hierosolymitanum , se allega más a IRENEO que al africano para su declaración de caro . ORÍGENES Combate « abjectum sensum de resurrectione corporis" la resurrección de la carne , obviamente entendida . No tiene dificultad , a partir del oua genérica y estoicamente concebido , en asignar a la psique racional ( resp . intelecto , hombre interior ... ) un cuerpo 54 : terreno y carnal en este mundo , celeste e invisible en el otro . Permanece en ambos estadios la ratio insita ( σπερματικὸς λόγος ) , que a modo de ἰδίως ποιόν caracteriza al individuo humano y le mantiene a salvo , a través de los cambios cualitativos.
Digase ratio insita , εἶδος , ἰδίως ποιόν interesa lo rigoroso personal , con independencia del régimen efímero . El estadio terreno , incompatible con el hombre en Dios , cede el puesto al régimen celeste invisible . ' Ipso facto desaparece la substancia terrena , la caro , ajena a la persona del hombre esencial ( voc ) 55. Simbolizada en las ' túnicas de piel ' con que revistió el Creador al hombre , en su exilio al mundo ( Gen 3,21 ) 56 , queda definitivamente en el exilio , con el retorno del hombre a Dios .
.......................
A parejo resultado se llega por el estudio de la suerte final de la natura corpórea 57
Dios creó ' per se ' ( лρoŋyoчμéνws ) la natura intelectiva . El mundo visible sobrevino a raíz de la caída de los ' intelectos ' . Si por axioma el régimen final ha de responder al del principio , con el retorno de los racionales al punto de origen ( åñonatάotaois ) , desaparecerá el mundo visible . Lo impide no obstante el dogma de la resurrección de los cuerpos . Dos vías de solución indica el Alejandrino : A progresivo aniquilamiento de la materia corpórea B - sublimación de la natura somática , de hílica a espiritual : persevera la substancia corpórea , con mudanza de solas cualidades . - ¿ Por qué llama el Apóstol temporales ' ( 2 Cor 4,18 ) — se pregunta ORÍGENES a las cosas visibles?
Utrumne pro eo quod nihil omnino post haec erunt in omnibus illis futuris spatiis ac saeculis , quibus dispersio illa unius principii atque divisio ad unum et eundem finem ac similitudinem reparatur : an pro eo quod habitus quidem eorum omnimodis corrumpatur ... ? ―――
Se dicen y son temporales responde - no porque desaparezcan un día , sino porque mudarán de cualidad .
Si enim mutabuntur caeli , utique non perit quod mutatur ; et si habitus hujus mundi transit ( 1 Cor 7,13) non omnimodis exterminatio vel perditio substantiae materialis ostenditur , sed immutatio quaedam fit qualitatis , atque habitus transformatio 58 . Era , al parecer , la solución de SAN IRENEO 59. Mas yendo a ratificarla con nuevas lineas termina:
Alius fortasse dicet , quoniam in illo fine omnis substantia corporalis ita pura erit atque purgata , ut aetheris in modum et caelestis cujusdam puritatis ac sinceritatis possit intelligi . Certius tamen qualiter se habitura sit res scit solus Deus, et si qui ejus per Christum et Spiritum sanctum amici sunt 61.
Insatisfecho de la solución ireneana , desavenido tal vez con la permanencia , en atmósfera divina , de la ousía hílica , insiste primero en volatilizarla ; y receloso enseguida de llegar ahí , opta por reservar la cuestión a Dios y a Sus amigos.