What is a "soul"

[Abba]

Great to see you participating in this thread, Abba.

Thank you.

---

Well, here is what the CCC has to say:

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 **The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.**238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

It seems as though that the spirit develops and grows as the soul does and as a result of the development of the soul. So, kind of like, the way the Holy Spirit is the light of the soul (“The Spirit is the light of the soul: Lumen cordium, as we call him in the sequence of Pentecost.” vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19910424en.html) the spirit of a man is an integral part of the soul like an illumination which becomes more and more present as the soul develops. But, it doesn’t seem to be simply the presence of the Holy Spirit in us, it is particular to the soul.

I forget right now where I read a reference to the ‘spirit of Peter’ being upon the Pope. I remember trying to understand how the spirit of Peter can be upon the Popes or Pope through out time and why and how so and exactly what spirit?

I am still trying to figure out the distinction between soul and spirit. If the spirit is particular to the soul, can it leave the body and experience with the individual’s intelligence and how so?

 

[levinas12]

Is the process of “infusion” equivalent to saying that the en-tire DNA which makes up a person’s overall potential is now in existence? Or is there more? Not being a theologian or a philosopher I can not answer this question. So I leave this open.

The soul is not just the software or the DNA - it is the activity of life itself (energeia to use Aristotle’s word) - self-motion - the soul is the principle of self-motion - while the fertilized cell may not have consciousness (just yet), it is moving rapidly towards consciousness.

The person is not reducible to consciousness anyway. The person is there from conception as a living being (to use Hegel’s phrase, a being-for-itself).

 

[levinas12]

The soul is not just the software or the DNA - it is the activity of life itself (energeia to use Aristotle’s word) - self-motion - the soul is the principle of self-motion - while the fertilized cell may not have consciousness (just yet), it is moving rapidly towards consciousness.

The person is not reducible to consciousness anyway. The person is there from conception as a living being (to use Hegel’s phrase, a being-for-itself).

Of course, there is a crucial difference between the non-human soul (e.g., of animals) and the human soul. The human soul has abilities not present in the other animals (I know this will provoke some responses).

 

[HalynaHanya]

I grew up Roman catholic and therefore have a sense of the meaning of the word “soul” as used and taught to RC’s like myself. However, now that I have had certain benefits of education, I am wondering if the word really has any real meaning. Here is my logic:

1. It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body.

2.The problem, however, with this concept is that it doesn’t match up with reality because my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.

3… It seems to me, therefore, that the term “soul” really has no referent in reality. I submit that there is no “ghost in the machine”. Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?

1 yes, soul is a ghost. The energy of your being. If you have ever encountered a ghost, it has the look, the memory, the disposition as when alive. Even Einstein found energy never dissipates. It can change form but never dissolves. For example if a person dies of cancer, he died because of bodily function, not a spiritual one. When you die you do not worry about pancreatic cancer…when you die of Alzheimer’s you will not worry about your brain function
2 when you pass on, you retain your memory. Such as Alzheimer’s it is a chemical reaction in the brain that deters your memory and even life functions, IN THE BODY, not the soul.
3 I find this with many roman Catholics. They believe in devils and angels but have difficulty In Believing In Souls. First your confusion iS this life on Earth is NOT the reality, it is the life after earthly death that IS the reality. I myself have experienced “ghosts” and unless you are open to this reality, you will not understand the TRUE reality.

 

[HalynaHanya]

As I read your initial post it came to me…
I am an eastern rite catholic of which we are very traditional, open to Gods interaction in our lives, souls and saints and and more what others call supernatural that we call Gods interaction in our lives…yes we do believe GOD hi,self does interact in our lives
You state you are roman catholic.
I go to a roman catholic church because of where I live. This priest In Particular I found is originally from where I did live.
His story is he was a successful financial broker in Chicago. He is from a religious family. When his father passed away he states he literally saw his fathers soul ascend. From that he left the high finance world and became a priest.
I myself have seen souls too, have actually interacted with them, spoke, reprimanded them, prayed for them.
I KNow this life is our test, even an illusion, but not real reality

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I grew up Roman catholic and therefore have a sense of the meaning of the word “soul” as used and taught to RC’s like myself. However, now that I have had certain benefits of education, I am wondering if the word really has any real meaning. Here is my logic:-]/-]

Pardon but your logic seems to be that you have allowed your education to undermine your faith. If you have given that up how can you hope to find a satisfactory answer about anything, let alone your soul. Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is now about 24 years old?

1. It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body. -]/-]

Pardon. Who understands that. Not me, certainly no good Catholic, no good philosopher either. According to the Church the " soul " is " spiritual principle " in man( #363 CCC.) It is created " immediately " by God ( #366 CCC). It survives the body upon death and is immortal (#366 CCC) It is the " form " of the body ( #365). It is the source of life in man ( 363 CCC) Without the soul the body is dead, therefore the sould is the seat not only of life in man but also the seat of intellect, will, memory, judgment, and the organizer and director of all life functions. This is a simple conclusion of logic. For all the foregoing reasons the sould is a substance, a being in its own right. But its function and purpose is to animate the body so the body and soul of man form one substance as long as man lives, the human person ( 362 - 367). Thomas Aquinas would agee to all of this.

2.The problem, however, with this concept is that it doesn’t match up with reality because my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.-]/-]

Pardon. The soul is the activating organizing force of the body and must be united to the body to function as God intended it to ( God said, let us make man into our image, and he breathed into him the " breath " of life ( i.e. all that it means to function as a person, see my comments above). Naturally, it functions well only when the body is healthy. But even in the case of a totally disabilitating disease, it is still the organizing form and life form of the body, the person is still a human being.

3… It seems to me, therefore, that the term “soul” really has no referent in reality. I submit that there is no “ghost in the machine”. Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?-]/-]

Pardon. I see your case is worse than supposed. The soul is no ghost as should be evident from what I said above. As far as a lobotomy is concerned read again what I said above. The soul is present as the life form of the body as long as the body lives in any condition. St Thomas and the Church both agree on that. Looks to me you have been reading too much secular/materialist science fiction ( oops I mean secular philosophy).
Looks to me like you are selling your birth right awfully cheap. So you have resigned yourself to being just a collection of randomly associated molecules, atoms, etc. Congratulations, do you enjoy being a machine with no future? Brave new human in a brave new world and all that?

:tsktsk: QUOTE]

 

[KindredSoul]

It has for some time seemed to me that the definition for soul is very simple, and that the existence of the soul is quite obvious. The soul, at its most basic when all else is stripped away, is simply the “most basic component of ‘self’.” Not the personality. Not the thoughts. Not the actions. Simply the most basic component of what we call “self.” This is indeed very difficult to explain, but to exist is to know it, even if by “over thinking” it you forget that you know it (as many modern materialists do).

Imagine a person who is made entirely of all the same physical material that our bodies are. Has the same brainwaves as we do. Can talk as we do, have measurable (from the outside) thought patterns as we do, eats as we do, cries as we do, has the same chemical reactions that cause emotions, etc. Now realize one thing: If you, yourself, judged this being based only on his own merits, not bringing your own existence into account, there is absolutely nothing that proves that he is not just a complex computer. As in, “not a self,” but only a blind mechanical sum of parts. Or, what some philosophers call a P Zombie: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_zombie And indeed, there is absolutely nothing physically measurable to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a human being is NOT that…except that we know better only by virtue (besides revelation) of being human and thus knowing that we are not “blank” inside. Yet because matter cannot account for this, I believe that the soul is that which separates a genuine living thing from a “P Zombie.” The soul is that which enables us to have “Qualia”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

You see, the problem with positing a soulless being is that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe that a soulless being, no matter how many complex brain patterns, emotion-emitting chemicals, or whatever else it had, would be any more “alive” on the inside than a highly advanced PC which was just following programming. The PC does not look out and “feel”. Any “emotions” of an AI are really just blind programming signals which are not being experienced by any actual “entity” on the inside. And indeed, if the material was all that a biological organism was, I find no convincing reason to think that biological organisms would be any different.

Think of this: All physical things are made of parts, and ultimately all different physical “things” are made of the same “stuff.” The same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up a speck of dust are simply combined in a different way and in a greater number to make up the physical human body. Ultimately, this means that physical things are a kind of collage: If looked at on the subatomic level, one could actually see that it was all the same (it’s all protons, neutrons, electrons, and energy) just in different arrangements. Yet a collage only appears to be anything meaningful because there is an observer to make sense of the collective “picture.” If the human entity were only a collage, however, what “observer” is making it appear to be more than a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons such as can be found in even the most basic matter? If there is no soul, there would be no such observer, and there should–by all logic–be no more real “life” inside of a human being than inside of a rock or a fancy computer; the human, though he would move and breathe and such, should be just as “blank” on “the inside” as a piece of paper…

Yet we know that the human being is NOT such. There is “life” in him that cannot be accounted for by matter alone. That life must be something not made of parts (or again, it would merely be like a collage). It must be something that therefore would not decompose. That life is what we call the “soul.”

Now, the Catholic concept of “soul” is more than just that (for example, the human soul has a “will”, and thus is what influences the brain so that it is not just blindly following chemical impulses and reactions like an A.I. would), and the full “self” is certainly not complete with a “soul” alone, which is why ultimately we are supposed to have bodies again after the last day; in the meantime, presumably, God empowers the souls in Heaven with a means of knowledge, experience, and action that does not require a body. But still, the basic premise remains that the soul is, at its most basic level, the “life” that simply cannot possibly be accounted for by matter as far as reason has ever permitted me to fathom. It simply cannot conceivably be made of lesser parts and, for that reason, is the one thing that would retain an existence of its own even IF everything else–body, mind, thoughts, experiences, emotions–disintegrated away.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[grannymh]

I grew up Roman catholic and therefore have a sense of the meaning of the word “soul” as used and taught to RC’s like myself. However, now that I have had certain benefits of education, I am wondering if the word really has any real meaning. Here is my logic:

1. It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body.

2.The problem, however, with this concept is that it doesn’t match up with reality because my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.

3… It seems to me, therefore, that the term “soul” really has no referent in reality. I submit that there is no “ghost in the machine”. Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?

I am jumping in late. Sorry about that.

Regarding point 1. Decartes, a duality of mind and body.
Has anyone pointed out that the Catholic Church does not accept Decartes’ philosophy?

 

[KindredSoul]

I am jumping in late. Sorry about that.

Regarding point 1. Decartes, a duality of mind and body.
Has anyone pointed out that the Catholic Church does not accept Decartes’ philosophy?

Some have pointed that out.

This makes me want to clarify that, in my own post above, I am not defending such a duality either. Not that your post was referring to me, of course, I’m just using the opportunity to clarify.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Hamlet123]

It has for some time seemed to me that the definition for soul is very simple, and that the existence of the soul is quite obvious. The soul, at its most basic when all else is stripped away, is simply the “most basic component of ‘self’.” Not the personality. Not the thoughts. Not the actions. Simply the most basic component of what we call “self.” This is indeed very difficult to explain, but to exist is to know it, even if by “over thinking” it you forget that you know it (as many modern materialists do).

Imagine a person who is made entirely of all the same physical material that our bodies are. Has the same brainwaves as we do. Can talk as we do, have measurable (from the outside) thought patterns as we do, eats as we do, cries as we do, has the same chemical reactions that cause emotions, etc. Now realize one thing: If you, yourself, judged this being based only on his own merits, not bringing your own existence into account, there is absolutely nothing that proves that he is not just a complex computer. As in, “not a self,” but only a blind mechanical sum of parts. Or, what some philosophers call a P Zombie: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_zombie And indeed, there is absolutely nothing physically measurable to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a human being is NOT that…except that we know better only by virtue (besides revelation) of being human and thus knowing that we are not “blank” inside. Yet because matter cannot account for this, I believe that the soul is that which separates a genuine living thing from a “P Zombie.” The soul is that which enables us to have “Qualia”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

You see, the problem with positing a soulless being is that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe that a soulless being, no matter how many complex brain patterns, emotion-emitting chemicals, or whatever else it had, would be any more “alive” on the inside than a highly advanced PC which was just following programming. The PC does not look out and “feel”. Any “emotions” of an AI are really just blind programming signals which are not being experienced by any actual “entity” on the inside. And indeed, if the material was all that a biological organism was, I find no convincing reason to think that biological organisms would be any different.

Think of this: All physical things are made of parts, and ultimately all different physical “things” are made of the same “stuff.” The same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up a speck of dust are simply combined in a different way and in a greater number to make up the physical human body. Ultimately, this means that physical things are a kind of collage: If looked at on the subatomic level, one could actually see that it was all the same (it’s all protons, neutrons, electrons, and energy) just in different arrangements. Yet a collage only appears to be anything meaningful because there is an observer to make sense of the collective “picture.” If the human entity were only a collage, however, what “observer” is making it appear to be more than a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons such as can be found in even the most basic matter? If there is no soul, there would be no such observer, and there should–by all logic–be no more real “life” inside of a human being than inside of a rock or a fancy computer; the human, though he would move and breathe and such, should be just as “blank” on “the inside” as a piece of paper…

Yet we know that the human being is NOT such. There is “life” in him that cannot be accounted for by matter alone. That life must be something not made of parts (or again, it would merely be like a collage). It must be something that therefore would not decompose. That life is what we call the “soul.”

Now, the Catholic concept of “soul” is more than just that (for example, the human soul has a “will”, and thus is what influences the brain so that it is not just blindly following chemical impulses and reactions like an A.I. would), and the full “self” is certainly not complete with a “soul” alone, which is why ultimately we are supposed to have bodies again after the last day; in the meantime, presumably, God empowers the souls in Heaven with a means of knowledge, experience, and action that does not require a body. But still, the basic premise remains that the soul is, at its most basic level, the “life” that simply cannot possibly be accounted for by matter as far as reason has ever permitted me to fathom. It simply cannot conceivably be made of lesser parts and, for that reason, is the one thing that would retain an existence of its own even IF everything else–body, mind, thoughts, experiences, emotions–disintegrated away.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

I would like to point out that this is an EXCELLENT explanation of the soul because it is easy to read, easy to understand and and replete with simple clear examples. With your permission I am going to copy this and use it in my Catechism class.

Long ago I read a great pamphlet produced by RZM (Ravi Zacharia Ministries, a Protestant Ministry) entitled “The Soul”. It is written by one of my favorite protestants, J P Moreland. it makes the subject of the soul clear - it is one document that sent me to The Catholic Church. It appears to me Moreland as well as he wrote and as clear as it was, wrote it as a bit difficult to read for the average “Joe” and it is a bit of a challenge to get through. You have made it so very clear. If you are an apologist, keep it up; if not, consider it.

 

[KindredSoul]

I would like to point out that this is an EXCELLENT explanation of the soul because it is easy to read, easy to understand and and replete with simple clear examples. With your permission I am going to copy this and use it in my Catechism class.

Long ago I read a great pamphlet produced by RZM (Ravi Zacharia Ministries, a Protestant Ministry) entitled “The Soul”. It is written by one of my favorite protestants, J P Moreland. it makes the subject of the soul clear - it is one document that sent me to The Catholic Church. It appears to me Moreland as well as he wrote and as clear as it was, wrote it as a bit difficult to read for the average “Joe” and it is a bit of a challenge to get through. You have made it so very clear. If you are an apologist, keep it up; if not, consider it.

Thank you, Hamlet!

You have my permission, with a condition: As I am not a professionally trained theologian, you might run it by a priest, one whom you know to be orthodox, to get his opinion of it. I can think of nothing whatsoever in my post that runs counter to Catholic orthodoxy, or of course I wouldn’t have posted it, but if my line of thought is going to be spread to even a small group of people in an actual teaching context, I’d rather be safe than sorry.

But as I said, you do have my permission. And thank you for your kind words! I am not an apologist in any formal sense, I’m just a person who has often asked himself many of the same questions one is likely to find on forums like this; and I am the sort who cannot seem to be at peace until he has found an answer to these questions that makes sense to him. So the content of my posts here are typically the result of a search that has taken place within me when some question or other began to haunt me myself. That said, I would be more than happy to do that sort of work with my life if I had the chance!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[grannymh]

Some have pointed that out.

This makes me want to clarify that, in my own post above, I am not defending such a duality either. Not that your post was referring to me, of course, I’m just using the opportunity to clarify.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Having had a CAF poster nail me for being a Cartesian extreme dualist, understandably I am a bit sensitive to issues of duality. You are not in my class when it comes to “dualism.”

I agree with post 69.

In addition to explaining the soul, it appears to me that you are also defending the existence of human nature as taught by Catholicism.

Thus, I wonder – Would defending the existence of human nature per se help untangle some of the comments in the OP, especially in point 3?

 

[afifriend]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:
•the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
•the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
•though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

The soul in modern thought

Modern speculations respecting the soul have taken two main directions, Idealism and Materialism. Agnosticism need not be reckoned as a third and distinct answer to the problem, since, as a matter of fact, all actual agnosticisms have an easily recognized bias towards one or other of the two solutions aforesaid. Both Idealism and Materialism in present-day philosophy merge into Monism, which is probably the most influential system outside the Catholic Church.

History

Descartes conceived the soul as essentially thinking (i.e. conscious) substance, and body as essentially extended substance. The two are thus simply disparate realities, with no vital connection between them. This is significantly marked by his theory of the soul’s location in the body. Unlike the Scholastics he confines it to a single point — the pineal gland — from which it is supposed to control the various organs and muscles through the medium of the “animal spirits”, a kind of fluid circulating through the body. Thus, to say the least, the soul’s biological functions are made very remote and indirect, and were in fact later on reduced almost to a nullity: the lower life was violently severed from the higher, and regarded as a simple mechanism. In the Cartesian theory animals are mere automata. It is only by the Divine assistance that action between soul and body is possible. The Occasionalists went further, denying all interaction whatever, and making the correspondence of the two sets of facts a pure result of the action of God. The Leibnizian theory of Pre-established Harmony similarly refuses to admit any inter-causal relation. The superior monad (soul) and the aggregate of inferior monads which go to make up the body are like two clocks constructed with perfect art so as always to agree. They register alike, but independently: they are still two clocks, not one. This awkward Dualism was entirely got rid of by Spinoza. For him there is but one, infinite substance, of which thought and extension are only attributes. Thought comprehends extension, and by that very fact shows that it is at root one with that which it comprehends. The alleged irreducible distinction is transcended: soul and body are neither of them substances, but each is a property of the one substance. Each in its sphere is the counterpart of the other. This is the meaning of the definition, “Soul is the Idea of Body”. Soul is the counterpart within the sphere of the attribute of thought of that particular mode of the attribute of extension which we call the body. Such was the fate of Cartesianism.

English Idealism had a different course. Berkeley had begun by denying the existence of material substance, which he reduced merely to a series of impressions in the sentient mind. Mind is the only substance. Hume finished the argument by dissolving mind itself into its phenomena, a loose collection of “impressions and ideas”. The Sensist school (Condillac etc.) and the Associationists (Hartley, the Mills, and Bain) continued in similar fashion to regard the mind as constituted by its phenomena or “states”, and the growth of modern positive psychology has tended to encourage this attitude. But to rest in Phenomenalism as a theory is impossible, as its ablest advocates themselves have seen. Thus J.S. Mill, while describing the mind as merely “a series * aware of itself as a series”, is forced to admit that such a conception involves an unresolved paradox. Again, W. James’s assertion that “the passing thought is itself the Thinker”, which “appropriates” all past thoughts in the “stream of consciousness”, simply blinks the question. For surely there is something which in its turn “appropriates” the passing thought itself and the entire stream of past and future thoughts as well, viz. the self-conscious, self-asserting “I” the substantial ultimate of our mental life. To be in this sense “monarch of all it surveys” in introspective observation and reflective self-consciousness, to appropriate without itself being appropriated by anything else, to be the genuine owner of a certain limited section of reality (the stream of consciousness), this is to be a free and sovereign (though finite) personality, a self-conscious, spiritual substance in the language of Catholic metaphysics.*

 

[grannymh]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:
•the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
•the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
•though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

Going back to the Council of Vienne, 1312, the Catholic Church has taught that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body.

In other words, centuries ago, the Catholic Church, recognized that the spiritual soul created immediately by God and the material matter resulting from conception did not exist apart from each other. Even though there are two principles, it is their immediate union which forms the single nature of the human person.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 365 -366. Please refer to post 60.

 

[Hamlet123]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

Help me to understand this. please. My understanding of the above leads me to conclude that the soul evolves; e. g., “In the first stage…” …“merely vegetative stage”…and …“later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul…”

This as you note is from Catholic Encylopedia. Is the quote from CE a quote from Aguanis or is it a quote of dogma of the Catholic Church. If it is a dogma of the church, to me, it creates a slippery slope lending amunition to an argument for abortion in the early life of a child.

Please help

Nuts!!! I do not know how to erase this reply of mine… I read now where many theologeons have abandoned this … Sorry!!!

 

[grannymh]

Help me to understand this. please. My understanding of the above leads me to conclude that the soul evolves; e. g., “In the first stage…” …“merely vegetative stage”…and …“later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul…”

This as you note is from Catholic Encylopedia. Is the quote from CE a quote from Aguanis or is it a quote of dogma of the Catholic Church. If it is a dogma of the church, to me, it creates a slippery slope lending amunition to an argument for abortion in the early life of a child.

Please help

Nuts!!! I do not know how to erase this reply of mine… I read now where many theologeons have abandoned this … Sorry!!!

Post 73 answers part of your question.

I am in the midst of checking with a Thomist Professor. Apparently, St. Thomas was wrong about a number of things.

What was posted from the Encyclopedia was a summary of some of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thinking, along with a bunch of other people. I did not see citations.I
do not have time to go back to the original post. Sorry about that.

Keep in mind that
it is the Holy Spirit Who sorts out
Divine Revelation(Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Don’t be hard on Thomas’ speculations. He was one of the greatest thinkers of all time. The major Church Councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, used much of his work to further explain Divine Revelation. I love him.

Check out the footnotes and cross-refernence in the margins which go with CCC 362 - 367.

I am having trouble with this computer in addition to the fact that I am traveling. I will answer your other questions much later.

By the way, theologicans also have to submit to the teachings of Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Originally from post 72
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:
•the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
•the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
•though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;

The following section was repeated in post 74 by Hamlet123.

•the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

Help me to understand this. please. My understanding of the above leads me to conclude that the soul evolves; e. g., “In the first stage…” …“merely vegetative stage”…and …“later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul…”

It is understandable that in the 21st century, the sentence beginning with “the rational soul is produced by special creation …” followed by “In the first stage of embryonic development…” …“merely vegetative stage”…and …“later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul…”

may look as if the soul somehow evolves to the final replacement of the perfect rational soul. Or that it is somehow creating a slippery slope lending ammunition to an argument for early abortion.

However, when one looks at the whole of Aquinas’s thinking, it is clear that he considers that the soul is a special creative act by God.

To sort this out, one needs to understand the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on Earth.

Obviously, Jesus is the fullness of all Revelation. He is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. Yet, even though public Revelation is complete, it has not been made completely explicit. This is why the Holy Spirit was promised. Source: Chapter 14, the Gospel of John. With the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils, over the centuries, have grasped the full significance of Divine Revelation and therefore formulated the basic Catholic doctrines. Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 65-67.

Preparation for a Church Council consists of major studying all of Scripture, and all the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The writings of subsequent teachers and theologians like Aquinas are studied in themselves and in relationship to Scripture, the Early Church Fathers and previous doctrines duly declared by the Catholic Church. In addition there are long periods of prayer to the Holy Spirit.

As is noted in the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, after the death of Aquinas, the Church Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, followed Thomistic reasoning. It declared that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. Source: CCC 365. This Council and others took from Aquinas’ writings what was proper to Divine Revelation and left the rest. For example, in 1513, the Lateran Council V taught that every spiritual soul is created by God as Aquinas wrote. Aquinas’ speculation about the soul being an incomplete substance (per quote in post 72) was not adopted.

This as you note is from Catholic Encyclopedia. Is the quote from CE a quote from Aguinas or is it a quote of dogma of the Catholic Church.

I did not see any citations in the post 72 quote. In any case, the style of the quote indicates a summary. The opening sentence of the quote is: “St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:” “Briefly”, is not a characteristic of Catholic doctrines.

 

[PioYapJr]

The soul is not just the software or the DNA - it is the activity of life itself (energeia to use Aristotle’s word) - self-motion - the soul is the principle of self-motion - while the fertilized cell may not have consciousness (just yet), it is moving rapidly towards consciousness.

The person is not reducible to consciousness anyway. The person is there from conception as a living being (to use Hegel’s phrase, a being-for-itself).

Thank you Levinas.