Not at all. In doctrines that teach reincarnation, the body is seen as a means to an end.Reincarnation would render the body meaningless.
So you believe that the church is capable of doctrinally teaching something that is incorrect? I’m not sure why you bring up Galileo, since that story has nothing whatever to do with Catholic doctrinal teaching.If rock-solid evidence were found for reincarnation, I would accept it, no matter what the Church believes. I put conclusive physical evidence we find in nature above doctrine (see Galileo).
The present case, as many other claims which have been made before, is sensationalist reporting and presents no evidence at all.
The point is that this view says that the body is just a shell the person inhabits, rather than one half of a complete person. We are not souls, we are not bodies. We are both, and if the body is not meant for the soul in eternity, this doctrine is denied.Not at all. In doctrines that teach reincarnation, the body is seen as a means to an end.
Yes, I do believe that the Church can err in “doctrinal” teaching. God has written the Book of Nature and if new facts we discover in nature contradict the Catholic interpretations of the Bible or the Catechisms, then we need to go back to those human interpretations and correct them.So you believe that the church is capable of doctrinally teaching something that is incorrect? I’m not sure why you bring up Galileo, since that story has nothing whatever to do with Catholic doctrinal teaching.
Since in some reincarnation doctrines, the body is seen as a means to an end, a means through which the soul can can act, the body is certainly more than just a shell in this view.The point is that this view says that the body is just a shell the person inhabits, rather than one half of a complete person.
In some reincarnation doctrines, it is stated that while in samsara, the soul has a material body, but when in the spiritual world, the soul gets to have a spiritual body.We are not souls, we are not bodies. We are both, and if the body is not meant for the soul in eternity, this doctrine is denied.
grafs50;12729084Is this possible as a special case? [/QUOTE said:No, this is not possible. Reincarnation is a heretical idea. Put it out of your thoughts.
This is completely at odds with Catholic Theology. To us, the body is as integral a part of the person as the soul. The body and the soul are connected, so the soul could not just hop to another body after death. This is also why we treat the body with such respect, even in death.Not at all. In doctrines that teach reincarnation, the body is seen as a means to an end.
If the Pope were to publicly declare reincarnation as heretical and non-existent, this would fall under preaching about faith and morals, and would therefore be infallible teaching, right? So, if rock solid evidence appeared stating otherwise, which would you choose: the Pope’s infallible teaching or the likely secular scientific evidence?If rock-solid evidence were found for reincarnation, I would accept it, no matter what the Church believes. I put conclusive physical evidence we find in nature above doctrine (see Galileo).
The present case, as many other claims which have been made before, is sensationalist reporting and presents no evidence at all.
I don’t like this combination of “secular scientific”. If nature tells us something and it is confirmed (as far as we can go with our inductive method) then we need to accept it. Science is neither secular, nor theistic, nor hinduistic, nor anything else than objective (at least that’s how it should be).If the Pope were to publicly declare reincarnation as heretical and non-existent, this would fall under preaching about faith and morals, and would therefore be infallible teaching, right? So, if rock solid evidence appeared stating otherwise, which would you choose: the Pope’s infallible teaching or the likely secular scientific evidence?
Souls are not a matter of science, so neither would their “transmigration” be.I don’t like this combination of “secular scientific”. If nature tells us something and it is confirmed (as far as we can go with our inductive method) then we need to accept it. Science is neither secular, nor theistic, nor hinduistic, nor anything else than objective (at least that’s how it should be).
Your two sentences contradict each other. Science doesn’t deny anything supernatural, including the soul.Souls are not a matter of science, so neither would their “transmigration” be.
In fact, science denies there even is a human soul, so how would it prove its transmigration?
ICXC NIKA.