When does a baby receive it's soul?

[Missian_Alyssa]

The souce of the teaching being refuted comes from:

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza

who is commenting on Mary T. Clark book on Augustine.

Clark’s reference has nothing to do with ensoulment, it related to when a male and female becomes aware of themselves.

google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=female+soul+mary+T.+Clark#hl=en&q=female+soul+%22mary+T.+Clark%22&tbm=bks

the Jewish view being reported comes from:

“Slavonic Enoch (xxiii. 5) teaches that “every soul was created for eternity before the foundation of the world.” This Platonic doctrine of the preexistence of the soul (comp. Wisdom viii. 20; Philo, “De Gigantibus,” §§ 3 et seq.; idem, “De Somniis,” i., § 22) is taught also by the Rabbis, who spoke of a storehouse of the souls in the seventh heaven (”'Arabot"; Sifre, Deut. 344; Ḥag. 12b). In Gen. R. viii. the souls of the righteous are mentioned as counselors of God at the world’s creation (comp. the Fravashi in “Farwardin Yast,” in “S. B. E.” xxiii. 179)."

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul

I am not making any claims of teaching, only listed the sources.

 

[Abba]

The souce of the teaching being refuted comes from:

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza

who is commenting on Mary T. Clark book on Augustine.

Clark’s reference has nothing to do with ensoulment, it related to when a male and female becomes aware of themselves.

google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=female+soul+mary+T.+Clark#hl=en&q=female+soul+%22mary+T.+Clark%22&tbm=bks

Hi,

I am not familiar with these authors. I went to the page but I do not see any refutations. Who is refuting what teachings? Can you explain?

books.google.com/books?id=vkXV2MZYLrYC&pg=PA224&dq=female+soul+%22mary+T.+Clark%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b4X5UoizAq7x0wGRlIDwBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=female%20soul%20%22mary%20T.%20Clark%22&f=false

Thanks.

the Jewish view being reported comes from:

“Slavonic Enoch (xxiii. 5) teaches that “every soul was created for eternity before the foundation of the world.” This Platonic doctrine of the preexistence of the soul (comp. Wisdom viii. 20; Philo, “De Gigantibus,” §§ 3 et seq.; idem, “De Somniis,” i., § 22) is taught also by the Rabbis, who spoke of a storehouse of the souls in the seventh heaven (”'Arabot"; Sifre, Deut. 344; Ḥag. 12b). In Gen. R. viii. the souls of the righteous are mentioned as counselors of God at the world’s creation (comp. the Fravashi in “Farwardin Yast,” in “S. B. E.” xxiii. 179)."

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul

I am not making any claims of teaching, only listed the sources.

ummm, interesting. I understand each soul is individuated for a particular body; so it is not the case that a soul can go from body to body. I love Plato even though I don’t always agree with him. I think with reincarnation he got it all wrong. However, I rejoice because now he knows the truth he sought for so long and with such devotion and dedication.

 

[Abba]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

• III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247

 

[Bookcat]

I further erred when I noted the Immaculate Conception. It does not apply in this matter as it does not establish the time/when conception occurs. It establishes that at conception the Virgin Mary was Immaculate - without original sin.

I understand your rethinking --but think about this further. It rather does.

The subject is not “when does conception occur?” but “is soul present at conception”?

The dogma is focused there on the moment of her conception. And at that moment --she Mary-- was preserved from original sin. If she had no soul -there soul be no her. No Mary. No-one to be immaculate from the very moment.

One can infer “ensoulment at conception” from the infallible Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1854- that Mary (the person…) was preserved from Original Sin from the moment of her conception.

Her conception – her – she being a person - body and soul - she was preserved from original sin.

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

And then if one wishes to bring Private Revelation into things – one can then look to the Private Revelation of Mary at Lourdes which occurred not long after that dogma was defined–she said “I am the Immaculate Conception” (not I was conceived immaculately).

Note too the language in English translation: I

Such is particularly apt given the feast on the 11th…tomorrow.

 

[meltzerboy]

Pardon me, , I shouldn’t have thrown Sacred Scripture at Aquinas. He was more familiar with it than I am and most likely ever will be. So, Aquinas was well aware of Psalm 139, Luke, Psalm 51:5 etcetera. I can’t use the Bible to refute Aquinas. :blush: The matter of when conception occurs is not firmly and clearly established in the Bible and that is exactly the matter at hand.

I further erred when I noted the Immaculate Conception. It does not apply in this matter as it does not establish the time/when conception occurs. It establishes that at conception the Virgin Mary was Immaculate - without original sin.

This is why in the document I quoted (see below) it is written that the Church has not made a philosophical determination and this document is dated 1987; long after 1854. However, it is also written in that same document that we can make a determination by the use of reason: how could a human individual not be a human person?"

Given the guidance the Church has given us in the past 70 or so years especially, I don’t see how anyone can be justified in teaching that ensoulment does not occur at the moment of conception and that there are different time spans for the ensoulment of male and female. I have found myself in a group that I looked up to for teaching as the members either had teaching positions at the parish or were religious. However, when those same people started talking about how women priests should be allowed, priests should be permitted to marry, and expressed pro homosexuality views, I with a lot of courtesy and protocol just minimized my time until I disappeared. I objected and mentioned the teachings of the Church but the response was that the Church is behind the times. I would recommend that you try to iron the thoughts out with them but if they insist that ensoulment occurs at different times ( I don’t see how they will philosophical justify such an idea in our day and age) - I would just look for another group. Males and females have the same nature, we are not different species.

I am learning and so I try to learn from people who are members of the Church and are teaching the teachings of the Church - not those of a church within the Church.

Btw, I wasn’t even aware the Church has not made a declaration on the time of ensoulment happening at the instant of conception nor the whole story of Aquinas and Aristotle. I hae been reading On Generation of Aristotle and Aquinas on this matter. Hey, they work working with what they had and I think given their limitations they did very well. When Aquinas writing on this topic, he refutes the idea that the embryo had the soul of the mother until birth. People were not clear at all on what was really happening. I think Aquinas helped, although I am still trying to figure out how he could justify to himself the idea of three souls in one body (vegetative, animal and then rational)

It was a Muslim who made it possible for Aquina to read Aristotle; ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad bin ʾAḥmad bin Rušd, commonly known as Ibn Rushd, latinized (Averroes)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...erroes_closeup.jpg/300px-Averroes_closeup.jpg

Now I know who the Muslim is in Raphael’s School of Athens.
philosophyonline.net/

Aquinas is said to have been influenced by Maimonides. The Jewish philosopher, also Aristotelian though not entirely, spoke of five parts of the soul: nutritive, sensitive, imaginative, appetitive, and rational.

 

[Abba]

Aquinas is said to have been influenced by Maimonides. The Jewish philosopher, also Aristotelian though not entirely, spoke of five parts of the soul: nutritive, sensitive, imaginative, appetitive, and rational.

Yes, but Aquinas adopted the idea of the vegetative, animal and finally rational soul (during the development of a human being) from Aristotle. And, his exposure to Aristotle was made possible because the **Muslim **ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad bin ʾAḥmad bin Rušd, commonly known as Ibn Rushd, latinized (Averroes) Translated some of Aristotle’s works to Latin.I don’t think anyone would argue that Aristotle had a greater influence on Aquinas than Maimonides - for better or for worst - and this was so on account of the Muslim known as Averroes.

 

[Abba]

The subject is not “when does conception occur?” but "is soul present at conception.

Well, exactly I have found this to be the tricky part. Perhaps, an expert on Saint Thomas Aquinas (also known as a Thomist) can come on board and clarify somethings for me. Now, I will confess, that I have not read the Summa nor the Sentences nor any complete works of Aquinas. What I do is read the relevant sections of his writings when ever he has something to do with a topic I am exploring. In other words, I do a lot of skimming of Aquinas. I would love to read his works completely, but I just don’t know if I will ever have the luxury in what remains of my life. There are saints whose writings I pick up and I cannot put down until I have devoured everything (Saint Francis de Sale, Saint Anthony Mary de Claret, Saint Faustina, etc…) but Saint Thomas is like Aristotle and it means work for me.

That said, and I hope I have demonstrated my incompetence to judge; yet, I can still provide my opinion although it is based on a limited exposure of Saint Thomas, I disagree with the scholars who say that Saint Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception. Furthermore, in regards to ensoulment, there seems to be a discrepancy (maybe it is only in my imagination) regarding the word ‘conception’ as to what it meant to Saint Thomas and what it means to us today. Perhaps, if indeed, such a discrepancy does exist (and it is not just my ignorance getting in the way) then it is another reason why people have misjudged Aquinas regarding his supposed denial of the Immaculate Conception. Regarding that, all he said is that she was redeemed and - she was. It was God that made her Immaculate.

How I understand it, Bookcat, is that according to Saint Thomas conception occurs when the fetus was ensouled (if that is a word). I don’t see how Aquinas would think that a human being could be conceived without the soul being present. I don’t know if there is a language problem here in the communication. In modern times, it is evident to us due to scientific discoveries that ‘conception’ occurs when the sperm fertilizes the ovum. However, I don’t think this is what it meant to Aquinas and there is the rub. In other words, I can not judge Aquinas from the perspective of someone living in 2014.

Bottom line, it appears to me (perhaps erroneously) that Saint Thomas considered that the beginning of the life of a person (conception) occurred when the soul entered the body and the moment when the soul enters the body is not established in the Bible. Anything that happened before then, due to the influence of Aristotle, was matter with the potential to be human and non-rational souls (something like that).

 

[Abba]

P.s.

Bookcat, this maybe the reason there were Catholics (and apparently still are - such as the Franciscans mentioned by the OP) who maintained that ensoulment occurs months after conception, exactly the months Saint Thomas said; yet, believe (as they must to be Catholics as it is an article of faith) in the Immaculate Conception. That being, that conception occurs when the soul enters the body and due to the influence of Aristotle, Aquinas erred in thinking that certain development must first take place (defining the matter human) before the soul can enter the matter. Do you understand what I am trying to say? At any rate, such thinking would be unacceptable given the guidance of the Church.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Hi,

I am not familiar with these authors. I went to the page but I do not see any refutations. Who is refuting what teachings? Can you explain?..

The two authors I refer to are the likely source of the Priest’s teachings about when male and female children recieve their soul.

If you google Mary T. Clark soul Augustine, you will find the pages of her book where she talks about the soul. google.com/#q=Mary+T.+Clark+soul+Augustine

books.google.com/books?id=1J3yD_H-ZOEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Mary+T.+Clark+soul+Augustine&source=bl&ots=R6CsFJ-hB6&sig=EFxeIWtDVsaMNZHBSJIZL0XGZtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7CH6Ur3aJMK0ygGE1YHYDw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Mary%20T.%20Clark%20soul%20Augustine&f=false

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_T._Clark

this is an example of how clark’s mind works: bu.edu/wcp/Papers/PPer/PPerClar.htm

It is possible that I confused Francis with Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, who is well known for her prochoice mindset

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8404
amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=francis+schussler+fiorenza&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=35271631441&hvpos=1o1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17151162781670736229&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_127tcd6fpb_b
answers.com/topic/elisabeth-sch-ssler-fiorenza
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Sch%C3%BCssler_Fiorenza
amazon.com/Francis-Sch%C3%BCssler-Fiorenza/e/B001H6OI22
hds.harvard.edu/people/faculty/francis-sch%C3%BCssler-fiorenza

 

[Bookcat]

How I understand it, Bookcat, is that according to Saint Thomas conception occurs when the fetus was ensouled (if that is a word).

Such has ab-*soul-*lutely nothing to do with my last post. No need to bring the Common Doctor into this here at all. I was not bringing him into my post there -but the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - which was defined hundreds of years after St. Thomas saw all his writing was as straw in comparison the what he encountered in his experience in the last years of his life and then upon entering glory.

I am discussing the defined Dogma of the Church - something that took place in 1854.

I was responding there only to this clip:

I further erred when I noted the Immaculate Conception. It does not apply in this matter as it does not establish the time/when conception occurs. It establishes that at conception the Virgin Mary was Immaculate - without original sin.

I understand your rethinking --but think about this further. It rather does.

The subject is not “when does conception occur?” but “is soul present at conception”?

The Dogma is focused there on the moment of her conception. And at that moment --she Mary-- was preserved from original sin. If she had no soul -there soul be no her. No Mary. No-one to be Immaculate from the very moment.

One can infer “ensoulment at conception” from the infallible Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1854- that Mary (the person…) was preserved from Original Sin from the moment of her conception.

Her conception – her – she being a person - body and soul - she was preserved from original sin.

Here is the Infallible Dogma proclaimed by the Pope in 1854

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that* the most Blessed Virgin Mary*, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

And then if one wishes to bring Private Revelation into things – one can then look to the Private Revelation of Mary at Lourdes which occurred not long after that dogma was defined–she said “I am the Immaculate Conception” (not I was conceived immaculately).

Note too the language in English translation: I

Such is particularly apt given the feast today!

 

[Abba]

****Hello Bookcat,

A refutation of what the Franciscans are teaching in the OP, namely ensoulment occuring after a period of gestation of 40 days for males and 80 days for females; is necessarily a refutation against the Doctor of the Church Saint Thomas Aquinas. It was Saint Thomas that held that understanding which he adopted from Aristotle as he agreed with Aristotle’s theory of formation. The Franciscans referred the OP to Ven. Mary Agreda (1602-1666) but she lived long after Saint Thomas Aquinas who by her time had already been named a Doctor of the Church. The idea of ensoulment after such periods of gestations was introduced to the Catholic Church by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

At first reading of the OP, I immediately through in some Bible verses and mentioned the Immaculate Conception. However, this would be unfair to Saint Thomas as it would be assuming that he was not familiar with the Bible. I am certain Saint Thomas read all the Bible verses I quoted including Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” So, the problem is not one of lack of understanding of scripture as scripture. The reason for this is that no human person according to Saint Thomas is present before ensoulment - a person has a body and soul. It appears to me, that Saint Thomas could read Psalm 51:5 and see no conflict with his gestation/formation theory because ‘conceive’ meant to him (and so it appears to me) when the fetus was ensouled.

This is the reason why people can hold the belief on the Immaculate Conception and ensoulment at 40/80 days of gestation and see no conflict. Otherwise, the Franciscans would be committing heresy. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the Church has been guiding us in the direction of the understanding that ensoulment occurs at fertilization. This especially considering the scientific findings of the formation of the human being (e.g. DNA).

Given the scientific findings of modern times, can one maintain Aristotle’s theory of formation (and Aquinas’s) and accept that ensoulment occurs at fertilization? I think so, even though I have not torn apart De Generatione. DNA establishes that the material is not only human but of a particular human. So, with the old example; we know that the marble is marble and due to our modern findings in embryology there is no question that it is marble. So, the material is ready to be made a statue = the fertilized egg from the moment of conception can and is ensouled. Not just that, but the Church has been ascertaining the equality in dignity of male and female and there is really no reason to hold in our time, that there is a difference between the two as if male and female were two different specie.

A nice break down of De Generatione:
embryo.asu.edu/pages/generation-animals-aristotle

Peace

 

[Bookcat]

****Hello Bookcat,

not really in reference to my post…

(not interested here in going into other things)

 

[Ron_Conte]

This is the reason why people can hold the belief on the Immaculate Conception and ensoulment at 40/80 days of gestation and see no conflict.

Saint Thomas wrote before Trent, which defined original sin, and before the Immaculate Conception was taught by the Magisterium.

“the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Ineffabilis Deus)

Mary was preserved from ALL stain of original sin, in that first instant of conception.

The Council of Trent taught that original sin affects us in body and in soul. So ALL stain of original sin means original sin as it would have affected her body and her soul.

Mary was not preserved from one stain at one time (in the body) and from another stain at a later time (in the soul at ensoulment), but ALL “in the first instance of her conception”.

So Bookcat is right that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception implies that ensoulment occurs at conception, i.e. that body and soul are created and united all in the same instant.

 

[Abba]

Saint Thomas wrote before Trent, which defined original sin, and before the Immaculate Conception was taught by the Magisterium.

It’s not so simply.

What happened:

1. I came upon this thread and sympathized with the OP because I myself had also never heard of such a teaching. I thought upon until this thread that Catholics all agreed that ensoulment happens at fertilization.
2. My reflex was to through some bible verses, the Immaculate Conception and quote some Church documents.
3. As I had never heard of such a Catholic teaching; ensoulment for females at 40 days and 80 days for males from the time of fertilization; I found the topic interesting. I found the book mentioned in the OP asked the OP to find out the chapter for me.
4. I continued my little research and learned that the teaching originated with Saint Thomas Aquinas, I read some of Aquinas writings (although I had problems over at New Advent trying to find some specific chapters and verses on the summa - never found the sections I was looking for) and I read the sections Aristotle Generation.
5. I realized that I was dealing with a Doctor of the Church and recognized the inappropriateness of throwing Bible verses (red herring - as if he did not know the Bible better than I) - the bible does not establish the time of ensoulment. The Bible does not establish the time of ensoulment. I returned to the thread and on post #38 took back my Bible verses and the Immaculate Conception and - rightly so. The Church documents do not need to be picked up as they serve a purpose but do not deny the position of ensoulment of Aquinas. They actually note that the Church has not declared definitively the time of ensoulment but she does teaches respect for the fetus.

Aquinas did write before Trent and before the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. However, although there were some discrepancies between his understanding of original sin and that of Saint Augustine; he still believed in original sin. Furthermore, Aquinas believed Mother Mary was immaculately conceived. What Aquinas had problems with was assuring that it did not create a problem for the teaching of Redemption. That said, note that in 1867 (?),( sorry, now I can’t find the decree/bull (?) I red last night) by a Pope stating that we need to follow the teachings of Aquinas etc…

Now, in my ignorance one of the things I considered, for instance, is the writing of a Pope in 1887 (?) and this after Trent and after the declaration of the Immaculate Conception (1854). How could this be if Aquinas teachings (one ensoulment) are against the teaching of the Church? Well, it’s because they are not as the Church has declared definitively the time of ensoulment.

 

[Abba]

The Immaculate Conception does not establish that conception happens at fertilization. As noted by a priest quoted by Edwest2 in an earlier post; "Even today in various quarters, the discussions continue, with new embryological details like twinning and chimaerization impinging on the debate, and new conceptual questions arising from the intricate biology surrounding totipotency and pluripotency. " forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11687302&postcount=11

Who knows what the ancients could or could not have done regarding chimeras. We sure see a lot of images from ancient ‘myths’. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html Maybe we are the once that are ‘behind the times’ and like Solomon said: There is nothing new under the sun.

As a Catholic Thomas believed that God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible.” Like Aristotle, Thomas posited that life could form from non-living material or plant life, a theory of ongoing abiogenesis known as spontaneous generation:
Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then.[86]
Additionally Thomas considered Empedocles’s theory that various mutated species emerged at the dawn of Creation. Thomas reasoned that these species were generated through mutations in animal sperm, and argued that they were not unintended by nature; rather, such species were simply not intended for perpetual existence. That discussion is found in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics:
The same thing is true of those substances which Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the ‘ox-progeny’, i.e., half ox and half man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.

Again, I have just been skimming Aquinas here and there and reading here and there; but it seems to me that he thought of conception more of a process versus the way we think of it now as instantly occurring at fertilization.

I am not an expert as I have made clear; I am just logically researching and I cannot pretend that there has been declared a teaching by the Church regarding the time of ensoulment nor that the Immaculate Conception establishes it nor that because Trent declared Original Sin it demonstrates that Aquinas was trumped.

Peace

Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life.
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm

COMMENTARY ON THE SENTENCES
dhspriory.org/thomas/Sentences.htm

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas on Original Sin
memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html

Mary’s Immaculate Conception
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

 

[Mary_Ellen]

I actually asked a similar question on the apologist forum a few months ago - essentially “do our souls pre-exist our bodies?” Fr. Vincent Serpa replied that it was church teaching that the soul is created at the moment of conception.

 

[mkoopman]

Tell your leader and others to PROVE it by Church teaching. They can’t do it. God Bless, memaw

Jesus has proven it. First by blessing John in the womb, which shows how He could act as True Man and True God even from His Mother’s Blessed Womb. In this act, also, John receives the blessing with Joy! Even before the Saviour was born His role as High Priest was present in our world by His Incarnation. Bless His Holy Name, Jesus.

Again, in the Resurrection we see body and soul reunited after death. Where was the soul and what was the body when the whole person is separated by death? Can a spirit eat fish? Our human soul and our ability to eat and drink the Eucharistic blessing raises us above the Angels even though they know the beatific vision. Is this undeserved gift bestowed upon us at Calvary not in itself enough to “prove” that a soul is present in the human person at conception?

But tradition includes a belief that the soul is known by God of all eternity. That is, that our individual soul is in some sense “deposited” by God when fertilization occurs. What would that mean about an experiment that “stops” the completion of fertilization just before it is complete? Of course, this would be evil, an immoral act, and an unethical experiment. So, then what of artificial contraception and even moreso abortificients?

 

[mkoopman]

The Immaculate Conception does not establish that conception happens at fertilization. As noted by a priest quoted by Edwest2 in an earlier post; "Even today in various quarters, the discussions continue, with new embryological details like twinning and chimaerization impinging on the debate, and new conceptual questions arising from the intricate biology surrounding totipotency and pluripotency. " forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11687302&postcount=11

dhspriory.org/thomas/Sentences.htm

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

This can provide insight and clarification as to why invasive human embryo procedures and research is an absolute evil. Or, have you heard a prophetic message informing you that a hybrid, chimaerization of humans is God’s Will?

Would that result be a nephilim?

 

[Abba]

[Please excuse all my typos above. I was typing while being interrupted, in a hurry and in the dark. English is not my first language and I need to edit, edit, edit.]

The OP asked:

Please help me know what The Church teaches.

The OP was actually provided the answer back on post #11 by edwest2 when he quoted:

Father Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioehics Center:

"The Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question. The “Declaration on Procured Abortion” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 phrases the matter with considerable precision:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent …”
+++

I actually asked a similar question on the apologist forum a few months ago - essentially “do our souls pre-exist our bodies?” Fr. Vincent Serpa replied that it was church teaching that the soul is created at the moment of conception.

Here is your question to Father Serpa:

Was Mary Pre-Incarnate, that is, did she exist in spirit before she was Immaculately Conceived? A friend told me it was in the Catechism, and that we all exist as spirits before our bodies are conceived, but I can’t find it and just does sound right to me. Can you help?

Father Serpa’s reply:

Hi,

That is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the soul is directly created at the time of conception as in Gen. 2:7 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 362, 363, 364, 365). Mary was fully human and in this she was no exception.

Fr, Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Could it be that Father Serpa disagree with Father Pacholczyk when he states: “The Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place”? Probably not. Father Serpa is saying that the Church teaches the soul is created at the time of conception. He is not saying that the Church teaches ensoulment occurs at the time of fertilization. This may very well be his understanding, but he is not saying that that is what the Church teaches.

As a matter of fact, many Catholics held that ensoulment occurred at a later time than fertilization and apparently there are some who still maintain that understanding. Aquinas could use Gen 2.7 to justify his understanding when conception happens:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord, formed the man of dust of the ground, (and then) breathed into his nostrils… Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 362, 363, 364, 365 do not establish the time of ensoulment.

What is being established here is what the Church teaches. I personally believe that ensoulment happens at fertilization, but, because of this thread which encouraged me to investigate what indeed the Church teaches, I learned that the Church: “has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place.” In time gone by, many people understood especially as they were taught to follow Aquinas that ensoulment occured 40 days after fertilization for the males and 80 for the females. So, when in 1854 the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was decreed many people who rejoiced did so with the understanding they had that she was conceived on the 80th day after fertilization.

Please understand that I am not promoting that conception occurs weeks after fertilization; however, I think that we need to be honest when presenting the views of others with whom we may disagree. It is especially good to do so in this case as it originated in the Church from a Doctor of the Church and it was a widely held belief in other times, whether I like it or not or disagree or not, that’s besides the point. We need to present the opposing idea properly.

+++

St Thomas Aquinas’s position on the Immaculate Conception

Contrary to the claims of the Modernists, St Thomas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the principles of St Thomas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. It is indescribably frustrating when otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas’s supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the “arguments, doctrine, and principles” of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology. the-pope.com/stThomas.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Jesus is like us in all things but sin. It is dogma that He had a human soul and body (united to His Divine Nature) from conception.

Unfortunately the fly in the ointment is that Aquinas and others held that Jesus was fully ensouled/formed at conception (and had only to grow larger). Us poor original sinners only 40 to 80 days later .