If I can understand you correctly Gods breathed a soul into all mankind. A man or women cannot exist without a soul.
**Why couldn’t they? Birds, Fish and Animals exist without souls, don’t they? **
I can surely accept this. This would include non-christians of course, since we are speaking of humanity in its entirety.Does an atheist have a soul?
**You just like to ask questions, don’t you Jon?
**
Would a person have the ability to believe in God if God did not choose to write it his your soul?
**Are you serious with this question?
**
Are we speaking of predestination here? Did God, in his infinite wisdom choose particular individuals throughout history to be blessed, and turns away from others?
**Yes, Catholics!
**
The terminology; Heart and Soul are used many times in Catholic Doctrine. I must emphasize two seperate entities HEART &, {making the distinction on the AND} SOUL.
Come on Jon, I am sure that you know that the adverb “heart and soul” has nothing to do with Catholic Doctrine as much as it has to do with speaking the English language. It means: Completely; entirely. The entirety of one’s energies or affections. For example, “He put his heart and soul into his work” Do you really think someone took his heart and soul and placed them in his work, or is that just a figure of speech?
Is it to be believed the Heart of Christ is the same as the Soul of Christ?
**
I am glad you asked that!
The nature of this question is complex and frequently becomes more complicated because of the difficulties arising from terminology. Omitting terms that are over-technical, I can tell you of the ideas themselves, and, then you may find your answer.
(a) The word heart awakens, first of all, the idea of a material heart, of the vital organ that throbs within our bosom, and which we vaguely realize as intimately connected not only with our own physical, but with our emotional and moral life. Now this heart of flesh is currently accepted as the emblem of the emotion and moral life with which we associate it, and hence the place assigned to the word heart in symbolic language, as also the use of the same word to designate those things symbolized by the heart. Note, for instance, the expressions “to open one’s heart”, “to give one’s heart”, etc. It may happen that the symbol becomes divested of its material meaning that the sign is overlooked in beholding only the thing signified. Thus, in current language, the word soul no longer suggests the thought of breath, and the word heart brings to mind only the idea of courage and love. But this is perhaps a figure of speech or a metaphor, rather than a symbol. A symbol is a real sign, whereas a metaphor is only a verbal sign; a symbol is a thing that signifies another thing, but a metaphor is a word used to indicate something different from its proper meaning. Finally, in current language, we are constantly passing from the part to the whole, and, by a perfectly natural figure of speech, we use the word heart to designate a person. These ideas will aid us in determining the object of the devotion to the Heart of Christ.
(b) The question lies between the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart; whether the object of the devotion is the Heart of flesh, as such, or the love of Jesus Christ metaphorically signified by the word heart; or the Heart of flesh, but as symbol of the emotional and moral life of Jesus, and especially His love for us. We reply that worship is rightly paid to the Heart of flesh, inasmuch as the latter symbolizes and recalls the love of Jesus, and His emotional and moral life. Thus, although directed to the material Heart, it does not stop there: it also includes love, that love which is its principal object, but which it reaches only in and through the Heart of flesh, the sign and symbol of this love. Devotion to the Heart of Christ alone, as to a noble part of His Divine Body, would not be devotion to the Sacred Heart as understood and approved by the Church, and the same must also be said of devotion to the soul of Christ as detached from His Heart of flesh, or else connected there with by no other tie than that of a word taken in the metaphorical sense as recalled and symbolically represented to us by His Heart of flesh.
(c) Hence the devotion to the heart of Christ is based entirely upon the symbolism of the heart. It is sufficient for our devotion that we know and feel this intimate connection. We have nothing to do with the physiology of the Sacred Heart nor with determining the exact functions of the heart in daily life. We know that the symbolism of the heart is a symbolism founded upon reality and that it constitutes the special object of the devotion to the Heart of Christ, which devotion is in no danger of falling into error.
(d) The Soul of Christ is, above all, an emblem of love, and by its characteristic, the Heart of Christ is naturally defined. However, being directly part of the Heart of Christ, it naturally encounters whatever in Christ is connected with this love. Now, was not this love the motive of all that Christ did and suffered? Was not all His inner, even more than His outward, life dominated by this love? On the other hand, when we designate Jesus as the Heart of Christ, we mean Jesus all loving and amiable. I hope that explains it for you.
**
I believe there is a clear distinction
**
I just said that, didn’t I?
Now I have a question for you, Jon, Was Georg Christoph Lichtenberg correct when he said “A person reveals his intelligence by nothing so clearly as the questions he asks.”
God Bless
**
…
:imsorry: