JaysonR
They were pretty clear that the exact same body as was came back from the dead in the Catechism; wounds and all.
So, I did a word search for
exact on this page.
Yours is the first use of it here, in the earlier post and now again. Please cite where "they" said "the exact same body" did anything.
They said "same body." That's it. As I showed, noun phrases of the form
same _complex object_ are uninformative about the disposition of parts that may have been discarded to make way for new improved parts, while retaining the unit identity of the complex object.
It is reasonably obvious that neither the Catholic Church, nor anybody else, has any hard and fast commitment to where Jesus' bones might fit into the story, because it has never come up. We do know that Catholics can contemplate Jesus' foreskin as a leftover - search
Holy Prepuce, also mentioned by another poster. Note that the belief in that leftover is uninformative about whether the same folks believe that Jesus grew a new one, or perhaps circumscision is one of those "traces" that he retains.
(It also shows that human reasoning about fantasies is error-prone. Among the many continuity errors in the various Star Trek productions, a favorite is early in NG when Wesley Crusher falls into a pool on the holodeck, and returns to his room soaking wet. Error - the water is holomatter, and as such ceased to exist when he exited the holodeck. The writers either weren't thinking, or else the gag was too good to pass up. One or the other explains the forsekin relic, but also shows that if a relic "shows up," then its existence will be accommodated into the story.)
We also know that IRL many faithful Catholics lose body parts in surgery: amputations, joint reconstructions and replacements, hysterectomies, tonsilectomies and so forth. Dentists extract Catholic teeth. These pieces are disposed of in various ways. Some are preserved for pathology education and research - in developed countries, with the informed consent by the same person whose parts they were. Is it your view that the RCC teaches that at the end of days, an angel will scour hospitals, medical schools, dental schools and other labs worldwide, gathering up the pathology slides to be reassigned back to their original owners? No, the RCC doesn't teach that. It's patent BS, even by their standards.
Similarly, in the case of organ transplants. If Joe receives a kidney from Mary, harvested posthumously, who gets it come the resurrection? Neither the new one nor Joe's old one still exists. are both rebuilt and reallocated? But wait - it was Joe's kidney when he died, and was Mary's when she died. Isn't it when you died that counts for "sameness?" There must be some time that "counts," since
none of us who survive childhood, including Jesus, has the same teeth we had in early childhood. Or in your view, do Catholics teach that resurrection bodies have two sets of front teeth? Oh but wait, that's not the "same body," that's a body that none of us have ever had.
Tese hypotheticals are consistent with scriptural concerns. Paul considers similar kinds of arguments in
1 Corinthians 15:29ff. As well he might, since the doctrine of the general resurrection is much older than Christianity, and Paul places Jesus' rise as part of the general resurrection. The details were unresolved then, and they remain unresolved now.
People are committed only to what they actually say, not to what you read into their remarks, and especially not to whatever improvements you make to what they have said.
And one more point about abuse of language,
Instead, they clearly believe all of his body came back; not part, or all but the bad parts.
It obviously isn't "clear," else we wouldn't be having this conversation. The very fact that it isn't clear means that the people in question are not committed now to your version of what they would say if and when the hypothesized situation happened.
