F
Fidelis
Guest
That’s what it sounds like to me.
*Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary *has a number of definitions that, taken together, seem to reinforce this conclusion:
- Status
*Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary *has a number of definitions that, taken together, seem to reinforce this conclusion:
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Fr. Hardon, who’s books and tapes I have a number of seems to be specifically referring to only a “Human Soul” in the above.
F
Fidelis
Guest
He also speaks of animal and vegetative souls, thus souls in general. The point he made appropo to this discussion was that the soul is the animating force of a material body, which angels do not possess. The other quotations cited above seem to support this as well.
I’m open to the fact that, speculatively speaking, there might be some kind of unique angelic soul that can adhere itself to a purely spiritual body. But from all the information I have been able to find, we know of no other type of creaturely higher soul than that possessed by humans.
H
Holyfire
Guest
Of corse Angels hav souls, they r souls .
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fidelis,
I don’t think, though, that this would be a viable option. If the angelic nature is pure spirit then I would think that it cannot be a composite substance in such a way that the angelic “body” has an angelic “soul”. Spiritual things seem, by their very nature, to be simple (that is, indivisible).
Thus Aquinas says in I-II, 50, 6 “In angels there are no essential parts. . .”.
It seems to me that if we want to talk about an angelic “soul” as an essential component of an angel, then we are talking about parts of angels. It just doesn’t seem to work, if you hold that angels are pure spirit.
That’s my 2 cents. Any thoughts?
VC
H
Holyfire
Guest
A spirit is a soul and if you dont agree then tell me how im not rite.
F
Fidelis
Guest
I tend to agree! When I said I was open to speculation on some time of unique angelic “soul,” I was talking REALLY speculative, as in without any evidence.
Like you, I can’t see how there would be any “mechanism” for a soul --which in Catholic theology seems to always be a substantial component of material being – to attach itself or be any part of a purely spiritual creature, such as we know angels to be.
F
Fidelis
Guest
As stated in the definitions above, souls and spirits are two different things:
Perhaps you can tell us ***why ***you believe them to be the same thing?
M
Michael96
Guest
Thankyou everyone for contributions so far.
It seems to me that the consensus (not that we should always go with a consensus) is that the soul (which is spiritual) is what animates the body - the implication being that only we have souls which contain our spiritual nature. The angles, being pure spirit, don’t need a soul in the same way we do.
Am I paraphrasing correctly?
It seems to me that the consensus (not that we should always go with a consensus) is that the soul (which is spiritual) is what animates the body - the implication being that only we have souls which contain our spiritual nature. The angles, being pure spirit, don’t need a soul in the same way we do.
Am I paraphrasing correctly?
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
I agree.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
So could an Angel be a pure Soul, complete in itself? Instead of trying to make an angelic soul a component part of their spiritual being. Unlike the human soul which is incomplete away from it’s physical body.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Human persons have a body and a rational soul. The soul is by definition the spiritual component of any created nature that has both a spiritual and physical components.
Lower living things have a non-rational soul, and so they are not immortal.
Angels are spirit. This spirit is their entire nature, as they have no physical body. Angelic spirit is analogous to a soul, but since it is not inherently a component of a nature with both spiritual and physical components, it is not called a soul.
Lower living things have a non-rational soul, and so they are not immortal.
Angels are spirit. This spirit is their entire nature, as they have no physical body. Angelic spirit is analogous to a soul, but since it is not inherently a component of a nature with both spiritual and physical components, it is not called a soul.
H
Holyfire
Guest
This is turning into something complicated. In your statement you called souls, spiritual. I still think im right. Its inda hard to describe a soul and a spirit but they are the same thing, at least in the Catholic Churches veiw.
F
Fidelis
Guest
I think that is a fair summary.
Ron Conte’s definition:
…has the added advantage of precision, which I am partial to.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
As precise and accurate as that sounds, I really believe it falls short of the truth. It seems to somehow make angels appear to be lacking something humans have. In other words, we have a spiritual soul and a body, whereas the angels only have a spiritual being, and almost seem to lack a soul as well in that definition.
In my thinking, the angels are a far more sublime creation than man. They can “take on” a body when they desire (as they have done in Scripture.) and they can easily affect changes in the physical world as well. They are powerful and mighty, with an exalted intelligence, and all this is beatified with an extraordinary holiness and virtue, along with what may be a far more clear vision of God than man may ever be capable of, even in heaven.
So getting back to our original debate, I know we think of souls as not just a spiritual “part” of us that receives (name removed by moderator)ut from our body, but also that it is the most individual part of us, that is uniquely created directly by God, and gives us our special character and attributes. This idea of a soul, although it may not be a “part” of an angel like it is in a lowly human, yet it may be united substantially with his spiritual nature, and so does indeed have a soul, but not in the human sense, or in the “part” sense.
So to sum, I’m not averring a component soul, but more a “heart” or inner distinction, comparable to our soul.
Yes Ron, I’m just saying what you did, but using more words.
L
lychanz
Guest
padon my interruption,
but, having read threads above, it seems to leave this case to an open ending answer will only bring confussion…
is there any official teaching of catholic church about this?
or would a CAF apologist please speak his/her opinion about this?
ty
but, having read threads above, it seems to leave this case to an open ending answer will only bring confussion…
is there any official teaching of catholic church about this?
or would a CAF apologist please speak his/her opinion about this?
ty
D
draco_cupri
Guest
I have considered this matter deeply, and I think I can shed some light. There are not two, but three substances of which a human being is composed, to wit, body, mind, and spirit. The mind and spirit taken together constitute the soul. There is of course another way of dividing us in two, and that is spirit and flesh. The mind and body taken together constitute the flesh. Thus, a human being may be dichotomized in two different ways, to wit, body and soul, spirit and flesh.
Body and (Soul = Mind and Spirit), or, Spirit and (Flesh = Body and Mind).
As for the angels, they have no bodies, but are pure spiritual essences. They do have minds, and therefore they do have souls, but their souls are not naturally connected to any bodies, so we say they are pure spirits. But to say they are pure spirits is not to discount the fact that they do have minds. They have minds without having brains, since the mind and the brain are by analogy like the software and hardware of a computer. The angels have intellect far more brilliant than any human (at least any mortal human — in heaven, it may be different) partly, at least, I think, because their intellects are not encumbered by the physical workings of a material brain.
Catholic Theology does speak, in different places, of each of these different ways of dichotomizing a human, body and soul in some places and spirit and flesh in others. So it seems to me my theology is sound. You may take it if it is useful to you or leave it as you see fit. Thanks!
— Draco Cupri.
Body and (Soul = Mind and Spirit), or, Spirit and (Flesh = Body and Mind).
As for the angels, they have no bodies, but are pure spiritual essences. They do have minds, and therefore they do have souls, but their souls are not naturally connected to any bodies, so we say they are pure spirits. But to say they are pure spirits is not to discount the fact that they do have minds. They have minds without having brains, since the mind and the brain are by analogy like the software and hardware of a computer. The angels have intellect far more brilliant than any human (at least any mortal human — in heaven, it may be different) partly, at least, I think, because their intellects are not encumbered by the physical workings of a material brain.
Catholic Theology does speak, in different places, of each of these different ways of dichotomizing a human, body and soul in some places and spirit and flesh in others. So it seems to me my theology is sound. You may take it if it is useful to you or leave it as you see fit. Thanks!
— Draco Cupri.
K
Kirk_Klosterman
Guest
So many different ideas. Ok, here’s my take on all of this. God is a soul, he is one single entity or consciousness. All energy and matter including living creatures residing with in gods soul consciousness belong to God and actually are God in a sense. Any consciousness residing with in gods consciousness like an angel possesses only an illusion of free will or individuality. Angels are conscious spiritual beings with out their own soul. This makes them simply just a part of God him self. An angels independent consciousness is real, however is also just an illusion given by god. An easy way to think of it would be if you were to some how isolate a part of your brain, let it think independently and then give it control of your right arm. The isolated brain would think it was its own person and it would do what it pleases with the arm it has control of, however it would still be your brain controlling your arm. That’s kind of what God does for the angels. Unlike angels which are part of God, we are Gods children and we have a soul. That is why Satan was so jealous. Our bodies belong to God, however our consciousness is separate and our own. Our souls are not part of gods consciousness like an angel. God made us separate and independent just like him by creating our souls. Thats why we are Gods children and not the angels.
G
gsaman
Guest
I came across this question the other day and have been unable to find any official Catholic teaching (or unofficial teaching) that specifies if the Spiritual nature of an angel is a soul. The closest thing I can come to, my apologies but I don’t remember where I read it…maybe in the Summa) that a soul animates a body: so, maybe it is only syntactic to say a human spirit is a soul because it animates a physical body but an angelic spirit is not a soul simply because it does not animate a physical body.
I did note in previous posts some people came very close to saying (without actually saying it) the soul and the spirit were two different things…this IS specifically taught by the Church to be wrong. The human soul is a spirit; they are one and the same thing but an animals soul (yes animals have souls) is not a spirit. Perhaps in similar way and Angel’s spirit is not a soul(?)
I did note in previous posts some people came very close to saying (without actually saying it) the soul and the spirit were two different things…this IS specifically taught by the Church to be wrong. The human soul is a spirit; they are one and the same thing but an animals soul (yes animals have souls) is not a spirit. Perhaps in similar way and Angel’s spirit is not a soul(?)
G
gsaman
Guest
I forgot to mention one thing, one post said angels have taken on human bodies but that is not correct. No angel has ever become incarnate like the Word, Jesus, did. When angels appear in the bible with the appearance of a body it is only an “appearance”! It is not a real human body.
- Status