I
igator99
Guest
What is the churches teachings on people before Jesus? Did Neanderthals have souls? Modern man leading up to the birth of Jesus? Did they all go to heaven or hell before Jesus?
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Why are you wasting your mental and spiritual energy worrying about this?
Pray for them and look to your own soul.
Pray for them and look to your own soul.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Of course all the descendants of Adam and Eve have souls. Before Jesus, the souls of the righteous went to the ‘limbo of the fathers’. This is where Jesus went when we say ‘He descended into hell’. He went to that place to bring those souls to heaven. Hell and purgatory also existed before Jesus came.
About Neanderthals, the question would be when did God create the two people we call Adam and Eve? If both the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were descended from Adam and Eve they both had souls. IMO, only modern men (homo sapiens) are descended from Adam and Eve. I think that the Neanderthals were more like highly intelligent man-like animals. I don’t think the church has ruled on this.
I
igator99
Guest
I’m looking after my own soul as best I can. I’m simply curious.
M
Matt33
Guest
The atonement superceeds time. There is no “before Christ” To God. He died for all at all times.
We know OT Folk had souls. Moses was taken into heaven along with some others. Don’t be afraid to logically think things out.
We know OT Folk had souls. Moses was taken into heaven along with some others. Don’t be afraid to logically think things out.
J
JesuitLoyola
Guest
I’m not sure if this is catholic doctrine or not but I was always taught that those that died before Christ who were righteous and lived in accordance with the law (to the best they could) went to be in Abraham’s Bosom a place of waiting for Christ’s death, at which point Christ came to them and brought them to heaven to be with him. Those that weren’t in good standing with the Lord…well…lets just say they didn’t end up in heaven…
H
HollyDolly
Guest
:angel1: I don’t see anything wrong with the question,you’re just curious that’s all.
I 'm not sure of church teachings on the matter.
However,I seem to recall that Cro Magnon,also known as Modern Man and Neanderthals buried tools or other items with their dead.
It’s certainly is true in the case of ancient man.Both it seems believed in some sort of after life perhasp.How they arrieved at this conculsion i have no idea.
I 'm not sure of church teachings on the matter.
However,I seem to recall that Cro Magnon,also known as Modern Man and Neanderthals buried tools or other items with their dead.
It’s certainly is true in the case of ancient man.Both it seems believed in some sort of after life perhasp.How they arrieved at this conculsion i have no idea.
T
thistle
Guest
**CCC 633 **Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Since the time of the fall, the doors of heaven had been closed to human beings. No human could enter heaven until Christ gasped his last breath on the Cross…until the work of the Redemption had been fully accomplished.
The “limbo of the fathers”, the "bosom of Abraham "-(Luke 16:19-31), the place of waiting all make perfect sense if we consider, based on tradition, that it is believed that St. Joseph died before Jesus did on the Cross.
Who knows whether the Neanderthal had a soul? Scientists estimate they existed between 350 -500 thousand years ago, but didn’t become totally extinct until 30,000 years ago. They estimate … it’s an estimated guess. I don’t think we can tell from a 350 thousand year-old skull or from a few primitive tools whether a creature was human or not (there are documentaries showing chimpanzees using primitive tools too).
One should remember that the theory of evolution is simply that …a theory. I’ve read fairly extensively on the theory of evolution and the catholic faith - mostly from materials written by ordained authors (because this one made me curious too igator 99
)
My own personal conclusion is that the theory of evolution is inconsistent in itself and when thought out logically it doesn’t seem to fit with some aspects of our faith…but that’s only my opinion. Officially the Catholic church doesn’t concern herself with the theory of evolution - it’s a non issue because evolution tries to answer the question, “How?” , while faith/religion answers the question “Why”.
The “limbo of the fathers”, the "bosom of Abraham "-(Luke 16:19-31), the place of waiting all make perfect sense if we consider, based on tradition, that it is believed that St. Joseph died before Jesus did on the Cross.
Who knows whether the Neanderthal had a soul? Scientists estimate they existed between 350 -500 thousand years ago, but didn’t become totally extinct until 30,000 years ago. They estimate … it’s an estimated guess. I don’t think we can tell from a 350 thousand year-old skull or from a few primitive tools whether a creature was human or not (there are documentaries showing chimpanzees using primitive tools too).
One should remember that the theory of evolution is simply that …a theory. I’ve read fairly extensively on the theory of evolution and the catholic faith - mostly from materials written by ordained authors (because this one made me curious too igator 99
)My own personal conclusion is that the theory of evolution is inconsistent in itself and when thought out logically it doesn’t seem to fit with some aspects of our faith…but that’s only my opinion. Officially the Catholic church doesn’t concern herself with the theory of evolution - it’s a non issue because evolution tries to answer the question, “How?” , while faith/religion answers the question “Why”.
I
igator99
Guest
I believe the church has taken a stance on evolution. I asked a priest many years ago what stance the church took and his response was evolution happened but God’s hand raised us up from that primitive state into modern man. There is a gap that can support this. You know the “Missing Link”. I was asking the question about Neanderthals because I was curious and I didn’t talk to priest very long about evolution. Perhaps it was just his opinion?Since the time of the fall, the doors of heaven had been closed to human beings. No human could enter heaven until Christ gasped his last breath on the Cross…until the work of the Redemption had been fully accomplished.
The “limbo of the fathers”, the "bosom of Abraham "-(Luke 16:19-31), the place of waiting all make perfect sense if we consider, based on tradition, that it is believed that St. Joseph died before Jesus did on the Cross.
Who knows whether the Neanderthal had a soul? Scientists estimate they existed between 350 -500 thousand years ago, but didn’t become totally extinct until 30,000 years ago. They estimate … it’s an estimated guess. I don’t think we can tell from a 350 thousand year-old skull or from a few primitive tools whether a creature was human or not (there are documentaries showing chimpanzees using primitive tools too).
One should remember that the theory of evolution is simply that …a theory. I’ve read fairly extensively on the theory of evolution and the catholic faith - mostly from materials written by ordained authors (because this one made me curious too igator 99
My own personal conclusion is that the theory of evolution is inconsistent in itself and when thought out logically it doesn’t seem to fit with some aspects of our faith…but that’s only my opinion. Officially the Catholic church doesn’t concern herself with the theory of evolution - it’s a non issue because evolution tries to answer the question, “How?” , while faith/religion answers the question “Why”.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
…Took a lttle time to find the materials that provide the best answers igator99. I have 3 excerpts which give a fairly complete overview on creation, intelligent design and **evolution **they all agree with what you said in the previous post. It might exceed the post limit if posted together so it’s better to give it to you in a series of 3 excerpts, beginning here with excerpt # 1.
What your priest friend said seems to be in line with Pope John Paul II’s statement in his October 22, 1996 address to the Pontifical academy of sciences [excerpt # 1 below]. To imply evolution as being more than just an hypothesis would also mean “more than a theory” [so I might have to stand corrected or at the very least adjusted, on that particular point]. However this evolution they speak of only refers to the evolution of the body – not the soul. I found it notable that the Vatican thinkers in the excerpt the Vatican’s chief astronomer – Fr George Coyne and Cardinal Paul Poupard , and professor FiorenzoFacchini – professor of biology at the University of Blogna say intelligent design is not really science :
Excerpt 1.
“…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.”
— John Paul II, 1996 [8]
In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position to accept evolution of the human body:
“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”[9]
In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
“Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
In addition, the Vatican’s former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, prior to his retirement, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” Cardinal Paul Poupard added that “the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity.” He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that “we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism.” Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in the January 16-17, 2006 edition L’Osservatore Romano: “But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science…It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious.”
What your priest friend said seems to be in line with Pope John Paul II’s statement in his October 22, 1996 address to the Pontifical academy of sciences [excerpt # 1 below]. To imply evolution as being more than just an hypothesis would also mean “more than a theory” [so I might have to stand corrected or at the very least adjusted, on that particular point]. However this evolution they speak of only refers to the evolution of the body – not the soul. I found it notable that the Vatican thinkers in the excerpt the Vatican’s chief astronomer – Fr George Coyne and Cardinal Paul Poupard , and professor FiorenzoFacchini – professor of biology at the University of Blogna say intelligent design is not really science :
Excerpt 1.
“…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.”
— John Paul II, 1996 [8]
In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position to accept evolution of the human body:
“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”[9]
In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
“Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
In addition, the Vatican’s former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, prior to his retirement, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” Cardinal Paul Poupard added that “the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity.” He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that “we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism.” Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in the January 16-17, 2006 edition L’Osservatore Romano: “But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science…It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious.”
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger’s insight in excerpt # 2 takes a unified approach to creation and evolution
Excerpt 2.
In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled In the Beginning… Benedict XVI spoke of “the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason” and that these two realms of knowledge are complementary, not contradictory:
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.
– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995],
Excerpt 2.
In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled In the Beginning… Benedict XVI spoke of “the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason” and that these two realms of knowledge are complementary, not contradictory:
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.
– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995],
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Excerpt # 3 probably best describes in brief form the generally held Church view:
Excerpt 3 .
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
So we still need to acknowledge that God gives the human soul at some point, even if the human body did evolve through a series of stages.
To me , the important thing is the evolution of the soul - not the body; it begins at conception and reaches its culmination (hopefully for every one of us) in God the Father’s arms, with Jesus, while being permeated with the love of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for this thread igator 99. You’ve helped me learn a little more about my faith. God Bless.
Excerpt 3 .
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
So we still need to acknowledge that God gives the human soul at some point, even if the human body did evolve through a series of stages.
To me , the important thing is the evolution of the soul - not the body; it begins at conception and reaches its culmination (hopefully for every one of us) in God the Father’s arms, with Jesus, while being permeated with the love of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for this thread igator 99. You’ve helped me learn a little more about my faith. God Bless.
C
Conservative
Guest
Everyone had a soul - since Adam and Eve. Those souls were in a holding pattern after Adam and Eve’s Original Sin (which closed the Gates of Heaven) until Jesus’ Death on the Cross reopened those Gates. Souls who’d lived before His earthly Presence - we’re taught - went to their Heavenly Reward, if judged deserving, I guess, once the Gates were reopened.
I
igator99
Guest
Thank you. I read through all three posts. It is very interesting. If I read it right, Neanderthals didn’t have souls since they were not human. Also I find it very interesting how the church talks about development and not evolution. I’ve never heard of the development of man as opposed to evolution.
M
Matt33
Guest
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I learned from the research too. I didn’t know too much about “intelligent design” until then
o ) so I had to fire up the search engine and the eyeballs. Unless it can be proven that Neanderthals preceeded Adam and Eve, the evidence as to whether they were human is still inconclusive (could go either way).
C
CapaxDei
Guest
Of course they had souls. The soul is the principle of movement (growth, nutrition, locomotion, etc.). All plants, animals, and human beings have souls – just different kinds.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with you,I believe the exact expression he used was the soul was the “life-giving principle” in all these creatures. I thought it was understood we were speaking of the immortal redeemable human souls in this thread …ie “People before Christ.”
- Status