Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: jarheadusmc on November 11, 2012, 07:39:00 PM
-
I've heard many "theory's" of the creation of the soul but lets take a short read of what the CHurch, Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Our Lady has taught in private revelation also:
In 1974, the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith gave its "Declaration on Procured Abortion" in which it is stated that the Church has not yet defined the moment the soul is created in the womb, yet the Church has declared that at conception is at that moment created a "human being" and to terminate that being is to commit murder of a "human being". However, the question of the creation of the soul is and has not yet being dogmatically defined.
It was the opinion of the Old Testament and the Jews up until today, of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints, that the human soul (Intellect/Will) is not created until the moment of "Nidation" or at the moment when the mother first feels movement, which is and has been thought and taught to be around forty days for a male and eighty days for a female.
Philo the Jєωιѕн Philosopher (20BC-52AD) and Josephus the Jєωιѕн Historian (AD37-98), in conformity to rabbinic custom, ascribe to the distinction of the formed and unformed having different worth. But of more importance are the opinions of the Church Fathers. Tertulliams - Origen- St. Jerome - St. Augustine - St. Thomas and the Apostolic Constitutions - are all of the opinion that there is a delay in the infusion of the soul with the generation of man until the formation of the human body had reached the ultimate substantial form or completed formation, somethimes called lthe moment of "Quickening or Nidations", or again, the moment the mother first feels the movement of life inside of her womb. What is important to note here is that the opinion of the early Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and eminent writers, is predicated on their interpretation of Holy Scripture, according to the "Septuagint version of Exodus 21: 22-25, which reads as follows.
"And if two men strife and smite a woman with child, and her chidl be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for thooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Modern versions of the Bible , traslate Exodus 21:22-25 somewhat differently.
DR. Kduvig Ott. in his "Fundamentals of CAtholic Dogma" p. 100f, gives the Aristotelian-scholastic viewpoint as presented by St. Thomas according to the Septuagint and the old-latin translation.
The Sacred Congregation of the Fatih , in the "Declaration On Procured Abortion, 1974, #7, p.9, &p. 26" explains that it was the common opinion of the early Church that of the delay of the infusion of the soul and that the "modern" consensus is that the soul is created at conception but that no definative declaration has been declared by the Church as of yet.
The Early Church Fathers and Doctors were unanimous in declaring for the delay of the infusion of the soul as taken from the meaning presented in Scripture. Although, the Fathers and Doctors did not agree on the "method" that God used or acted on to delay the infusion, nevertheless they again were in agreement that the soul was not created until the moment of Nidation or Quickening. It was St. Thomas who eventually came up with the explanation of how God created the human soul - in that firstly, at conception, although the life is human the soul is that of vegetative, as the body grows and develops the soul is transformed into animal and when the body is completely formed, then God in His act of Creation, instantly destroys the animal and creates and infuses the human soul.
St. Thomas explains that starting at the moment of conception the single cell starts to divide and begins to grow immediately the heart, from the heart then the blood vessels with the nutrients and necessary elements begin to build the rest of the body until finally the last part of the body to be formed is the "brain" which is the vehicle by which the body presents to the soul the senses preceptions, which the Intellect gathers and then presents it to the will. So that what St. Thomas is saying is that the human soul is not created until the brain is formed and at that instant God creates and infuses the human soul - God is firstly, indirectly, by pro-creation, with the co-operation of the parents, or Creator and at the moment of the complete formation of the brain, directly is our Father by the direct creation of our human soul.
Now: This has been the teaching and understanding of the Church, Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the Church for near two thousand years until the age of the enlightenment where this was questioned for the first time. It is my faith and understanding that the "unanimous" teachings of the Fathers and Doctors is Cathloc Docrtine and unasailable.
In a catechism class with a certain priest I brought up this subject to which the priest became very angry and said: Can you imagine if that was taught what the effect would be on the whole abortion debate. To which I said, it is the duty of the priest and Church to teach the truth no matter where it may lie and this and has been the constant teaching of the Church. The priest then said that it is now the unanimous teaching of the Church and Theologians that the soul is created at conception - which I repeated that on the contrary, the Church in its 1974 Declaration says just the opposite, that it is not yet defined and that presently theologians are now of both opinions, but does not the unanimous, constant and centuries teaching of the Church rule first - or then we should follow the new teachings of Vatican II and the heretics now passing as Theologians in the Church.
Finally, the priest asked me did I get this from the "City of God" by the Ven. Mary of Agreda; and I said that I did firstly and then discovered after serious inquiry that it was also the teaching of the Church.
In "The City of God" dictated by Our Lady herself to the Venerable Mary of Agread in the 17th century, Vol. 4, The Coronation, p. 264, 265, #281: Our Lady does explain to Mary of Agreda that "ordinarily" the soul is delayed in its creation until the moment of Nidation thus supporting the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. I might say that Our Lady says at this point in the City of God that the salvation of pagans and idolaters is in certain propect.
This particular part of the City of God should be read by all as it has within it a treasure of teaching on this subject withing one paragraph. It is my personal opinion that at some future date that this work, dicated directly by Our Lady herself to the Venerable Mary of Agreda - will someday be elevated to a position in the Church very close to right under the integrity of the Bible and Scripture itself.
It is a consolation to understand that many of these terrible abortions result not in the death of a baby with a soul, if aborted at least before 10 weeks, but the termination of a human life only, if I may say that at this moment considering the subject here. It is still murder, one is still terminating the life of a potential human being at this point, but one not having a rational soul. At this point we might resort to thinking objectively, of how things are and what the Church teaches, no matter our personal "feelings".
What say you?
-
The old Aristotelian theory of embryology depended on spontaneous generation.
That theory is incorrect. The rational soul of man is infused at the moment of conception - the development of the fetus is the unfolding of a form pre-existing in the embryo.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is also opposed to the idea of ensoulment into a spontaneously generating embryo around the time of the quickening (when limbs are formed)
-
I was asked in front of an abortion clinic about 20 years ago when life begins. Life begins at conception. I say potential life begins with seed and sperm. In a store, seeds for plants are carefully sealed and sold for a price. Are our seeds created by God even more valuable?! To destroy the seeds of man, purposely is against God, sinful. When conception takes place the soul is infused. There is no room to destroy that which is of God.
-
The old Aristotelian theory of embryology depended on spontaneous generation.
That theory is incorrect. The rational soul of man is infused at the moment of conception - the development of the fetus is the unfolding of a form pre-existing in the embryo.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is also opposed to the idea of ensoulment into a spontaneously generating embryo around the time of the quickening (when limbs are formed)
What does "spontaneous generation" mean in regards to the supposed Aristotelian theory? Obviously you must agree, that God creates each soul "spontaneously".
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not necessarily relevant (nor does it teach contrary to St. Thomas, as one of the most celebrated theologians of modern times, Fr. Norberto del Prado showed in "Divus Thomas et Bulla Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus").
It is at least absolutely legitimate for a Catholic to believe in successive animation, together with Jerome, Augustine, Thomas or the Decretum Gratianum, as long as nothing to the contrary is defined.
-
If ensoulment occurred not at conception but at some time later, that would make it moral to use the morning after pill, as you would not be killing a human being but some piece of tissue. Your theory is untenable.
-
Even if ensoulment occurred at a later stage (which in fact in does not), it would still not be licit to use the morning after pill. It would not be murder, but still a grave obstruction of the natural law, being a form of contraception.
-
Venerable Mary of Agreda's: Mystical City of God (http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm) - (whose body remains Incorrupt) states that Our Lady received her soul after 7 days and that men get theirs after 40 days and women after 80 days.
She speaks of the rational soul - not sure if it's the same thing as the immortal soul or not.............
219. The day on which the first Conception of the
body of the most holy Mary happened, was a Sunday,
corresponding to the day of the week on which the an
gels were created, whose exalted Queen and Lady She
was to be. For the formation and growth of other
human bodies, according to the natural order, many
days are necessary in order to organize and fit them for
the reception of the rational soul. Thus for a manchild
are required forty and for females eighty days,
more or less, according to the natural heat and disposi
tion of the mothers. In the formation of the virginal
body of Mary the Almighty accelerated the natural time
and that, which according to the natural rule required
eighty days, was accomplished in Her within seven days.
Within these seven days, by accelerated growth, was
organized and prepared in the womb of holy Anne that
wonderful body which was to receive the most holy soul
of her Daughter and of our Lady and Queen.
220. On the Saturday next following this first Con
ception, the Almighty wrought the second Conception
by creating the soul of his Mother and infusing it into
the body; and thus entered into the world that pure
Creature, more holy, perfect and agreeable to His eyes
than all those He had created, or will create to the end
of the world, or through the eternities. God maintained
a mysterious correspondence in the execution of this
work with that of creating all the rest of the world in
seven days, as is related in the book of Genesis. Then
no doubt He rested in truth, according to the figurative
language of Scripture, since He has now created the
most perfect Creature of all, giving through it a be
ginning to the work of the divine Word and to the Re
demption of the human race. Thus was this day a
paschal feast for God and also for all creatures.
221. On account of this Immaculate Conception of
most holy Mary the holy Spirit has provided that Satur
day be consecrated to the Virgin in the holy Church,
since that was the day on which She received the great
est benefit through the creation of her soul and its
union with its body without entailing sin or its effects.
The day of the Immaculate Conception, which the Church
now celebrates, is not the day of her first conception,
when the body alone was conceived, but it is the day of
the second Conception or the infusion of her soul. Body
and soul, therefore, remained for nine months in the
womb of holy Anne, which are the days that intervene
between the Conception to the Nativity of that Queen.
During the other seven days preceding the vivification
of the inanimate body, it was disposed and organized by
the divine power, in order that this work might corre
spond with the account that Moses gives of the Creation
of all things, comprising the formation of the whole
world at its beginning. ........
-
In "The City of God" dictated by Our Lady herself to the Venerable Mary of Agread in the 17th century, Vol. 4, The Coronation, p. 264, 265, #281: Our Lady does explain to Mary of Agreda that "ordinarily" the soul is delayed in its creation until the moment of Nidation thus supporting the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. I might say that Our Lady says at this point in the City of God that the salvation of pagans and idolaters is in certain propect.
This particular part of the City of God should be read by all as it has within it a treasure of teaching on this subject withing one paragraph. It is my personal opinion that at some future date that this work, dicated directly by Our Lady herself to the Venerable Mary of Agreda - will someday be elevated to a position in the Church very close to right under the integrity of the Bible and Scripture itself.
It is a consolation to understand that many of these terrible abortions result not in the death of a baby with a soul, if aborted at least before 10 weeks, but the termination of a human life only, if I may say that at this moment considering the subject here. It is still murder, one is still terminating the life of a potential human being at this point, but one not having a rational soul. At this point we might resort to thinking objectively, of how things are and what the Church teaches, no matter our personal "feelings".
What say you?
I've read the Mystical City of God and think it is one of the best Catholic works I've ever read - but like you, I do not know what to make of this and look forward to others input.
For the benefit of those who can't open the PDF on their phone or have dial up..........Vol. 4, The Coronation, p. 264, 265, #281
281. All this, especially with the children of the Church,
happens in the following manner. As soon as the demons
suspect that the conception of a human body is to take
place, he first notes the intention of the parents, and
whether they are in the state of grace or not, or whether
they have committed any excess in the act of generation;
he studies also the complexion of the humors of their
bodies, for ordinarily these humors influence also those
of the body generated. The demons also take note of the
particular as well as of the general natural causes and
conditions of nature, which unite in bringing about the
generation and the organization of the human body.
From these different concurring elements of generation,
the demons, with their vast experience, judge as much as
possible of the complexion or inclinations of the one con
ceived and they are wont to lay out great plans for future
action. If they fear good results, they seek to hinder as
much as possible the last generation or infusion of the
soul, waylaying the mother with dangers or temptations
to bring about an abortion before the creation of the
soul, which is ordinarily delayed forty or eighty days.
But as soon as they see God create or infuse the soul, the
wrath of these dragons exerts itself in furious activity
to prevent the creature from issuing to light, and from
attaining Baptism, if it is to be born where this Sacra
ment can easily be administered. For this purpose they
suggest and tempt the mothers to many disorders and ex
cesses, whereby the parturition is forced and a premature
birth or the death of the child in the womb might be
caused; for among Catholics and heretics, who still ad
minister Baptism, the demons content themselves with
depriving children of Baptism and thus withholding
them in limbo from the vision of God. Among pagans
and idolaters they are not so solicitous, because among
them damnation is in certain prospect.
-
"spontaneous generation" was regarded as an observed natural process that allowed life to arise in stages from non-living matter.
-
"spontaneous generation" was regarded as an observed natural process that allowed life to arise in stages from non-living matter.
I don't see the connection to the theory of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. It is rather the opposite, as some thought the soul to spring forth from the parents directly, as opposed to being infused by God.
Of course this has no effect on the lawfulness of abortion, as one can clearly see from the Gratian decretal.
-
Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs
-
I don't see the connection to the theory of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
The successive development of the vegetative, animal, and rational soul in comes from Aristotle.
It is rather the opposite, as some thought the soul to spring forth from the parents directly, as opposed to being infused by God.
St. Thomas Aquinas relied on Aristotle's theories on this. That doesn't mean they agreed completely.
Of course this has no effect on the lawfulness of abortion, as one can clearly see from the Gratian decretal.
Not the lawfulness, but it does have to do with the gravity.
-
Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs
This is the same as the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas:
"Anima sensitiva educitur de potentia materiae in brutis. In nobis vero non, sed est per creationem, cuм eius essentia sit essentia animae rationalis, quae est per creationem" (Quodl, 11, 5, ad 1).
I do not doubt that both theories have their difficulties. The individuation of twins, for example, speaking of the theory of direct infusion, as well as the fact that about 50% of pregnancies fail, usually unnoticed, in the very first stage.
If this were not a problem, the Congregation for Studies should have formulated the XV. thomistic thesis differently:
XV. Contra, per se subsistit anima humana, quae, cuм subiecto sufficienter disposito potest infundi, a Deo creatur, et sua natura incorruptibilis est atque immortalis., relying of course on St. Thomas in his definition of soul generally:
"Anima est actus primus physici corporis organici potentia vitam habentis." (CG, 2, 61)
Also, as far as I can see it, the thomist moral theologians do not differentiate the gravity of an abortion according to the state of the fetus, even though the ascribe to the theory of St. Thomas.
-
It's impossible to argue the question of ensoulment doesn't have to do with gravity.
You should be able to see that.
It is also obvious that the fact that many pregnancies fail is irrelevant to the question of the creation of the soul.
-
It's impossible to argue the question of ensoulment doesn't have to do with gravity.
You should be able to see that.
It is also obvious that the fact that many pregnancies fail is irrelevant to the question of the creation of the soul.
You are correct, I have to retract and apologize. As a matter of fact, the Corpus Iuris Canonici states exactly what you are saying, namely:
C. VIII. Non est homicida qui aborsum procurat ante, quam anima corpori sit infusa.
Quod uero non formatum puerperium ad homicidium pertinere noluit, profecto nec hominem deputauit, quod tale in utero geritur. Hic de anima questio solet agitari, utrum quicquid formatum non est nec animatum quidem possit intelligi, et ideo non homicidium sit, quia nec exanimatum dici potest, si animam non habebat. Item:
§. 1. Si illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerat sed adhuc informiter quodammodo animatum (quoniam magna de anima questio non est) precipitanda indiscussa temeritate sentenciae, ideo lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima uiua in eo corpore, quod sensu caret.
Decretum Magistri Gratiani 2.32.2.7
It is very surprising then, though, that the law of the Church was such for several hundred years.
-
God created and willed that man be in the image of God and not a monkeys uncle. Those enemies posting, give themselves away. They are of man and not living their lives with a Divine Superior. If they can toss out the supernatural, the enemy thinks he can reign and the enemy is the "damned fool". The enemy plays the game of reasoning and the True faith believes in the mysteries of FAith the mysteries of Our Lady formed before God created earth and man. We believe in miracles and not of magic. The proof of existence of God, is in the reasoning, if we are reasoning, could not have come into existence by itself. with such harmony that even science still searches for answers to many questions. Animals have instinct and no free will. So, if the enemy thinks they be so smart, well, are you animal to think that? No, but if you wish to be it is your lose. Just because you can not see the soul does not mean that it does not exist. Yet you would not deny human reason, that can not be seen. Soul cannot die as the body does. Soul is not dependent on matter and hence not subject to decay or death.
My suggestion, is when those of this forum who are of reason and intellect recognize a post(s) that is trying to manipulate our thoughts, ignore them and post no more. Let the post die out. We need no enemy to spin our wheels and waste our time. The enemy is recognized when they use the formula of KAB. Trying to change our knowledge to change our attitude and behavior. Notice how the subject began with when the soul is infused to birth control.
-
Even if ensoulment occurred at a later stage (which in fact in does not), it would still not be licit to use the morning after pill. It would not be murder, but still a grave obstruction of the natural law, being a form of contraception.
You are right, Laval. I expressed myself badly. Thank you for the correction.
Great post, Songbird.
-
Many thanks jarheadusmc for having posted this topic - some 4 plus years ago. It is quite fascinating to say the least. In particular I wish to thank you for introducing the truly stunning work (The City of God) of Venerable Mary of Agreda into the discussion.
Also, I wish to thank Stubborn for the spot on quotes from the aforesaid work along with the link to it which I repeat here: THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD. (http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm)
-
I think an answer to the question lies with Our Lady. How could she be conceived without sin if she didn't have a soul at conception? She was the Immaculate Conception, not the Immaculate ensoulment.
I am not questioning St Thomas Aquinas as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not yet declared ( until hundreds of years later).
It may be that the earliest understanding and awareness of a pregnancy at that time was the "quickening." There may have been other questionable signs of pregnancy before that but nothing as certain as the movement of the child. I would suspect that's when St Thomas' would have defined the beginning of life. Now of course, we know ensoulment and conception occur simultaneously, for that is what constitutes human life. I don't think a person can live without a soul.
-
Stubborn said:
Venerable Mary of Agreda's: Mystical City of God (http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm) - (whose body remains Incorrupt) states that Our Lady received her soul after 7 days and that men get theirs after 40 days and women after 80 days.
She speaks of the rational soul - not sure if it's the same thing as the immortal soul or not.............
219. The day on which the first Conception of the
body of the most holy Mary happened, was a Sunday,
corresponding to the day of the week on which the an
gels were created, whose exalted Queen and Lady She
was to be. For the formation and growth of other
human bodies, according to the natural order, many
days are necessary in order to organize and fit them for
the reception of the rational soul. Thus for a manchild
are required forty and for females eighty days,
more or less, according to the natural heat and disposi
tion of the mothers. In the formation of the virginal
body of Mary the Almighty accelerated the natural time
and that, which according to the natural rule required
eighty days, was accomplished in Her within seven days.
Within these seven days, by accelerated growth, was
organized and prepared in the womb of holy Anne that
wonderful body which was to receive the most holy soul
of her Daughter and of our Lady and Queen.
220. On the Saturday next following this first Con
ception, the Almighty wrought the second Conception
by creating the soul of his Mother and infusing it into
the body; and thus entered into the world that pure
Creature, more holy, perfect and agreeable to His eyes
than all those He had created, or will create to the end
of the world, or through the eternities. God maintained
a mysterious correspondence in the execution of this
work with that of creating all the rest of the world in
seven days, as is related in the book of Genesis. Then
no doubt He rested in truth, according to the figurative
language of Scripture, since He has now created the
most perfect Creature of all, giving through it a be
ginning to the work of the divine Word and to the Re
demption of the human race. Thus was this day a
paschal feast for God and also for all creatures.
221. On account of this Immaculate Conception of
most holy Mary the holy Spirit has provided that Satur
day be consecrated to the Virgin in the holy Church,
since that was the day on which She received the great
est benefit through the creation of her soul and its
union with its body without entailing sin or its effects.
The day of the Immaculate Conception, which the Church
now celebrates, is not the day of her first conception,
when the body alone was conceived, but it is the day of
the second Conception or the infusion of her soul. Body
and soul, therefore, remained for nine months in the
womb of holy Anne, which are the days that intervene
between the Conception to the Nativity of that Queen.
During the other seven days preceding the vivification
of the inanimate body, it was disposed and organized by
the divine power, in order that this work might corre
spond with the account that Moses gives of the Creation
of all things, comprising the formation of the whole
world at its beginning. ........
As far as I know the Church has still not defined when the moment of ensoulment actually takes place. If there has been a clear and conclusive definitive statement concerning this please be so kind as to cite the exact "chapter and verse" so to speak.
I think it is incuмbent upon anyone who wishes to study this subject of ensoulment seriously to take into account the above quotes from The Mystical City of God. It should also be noted that a good number of pre-Vatican II popes praised The Mystical City of God and promoted its widest possible dissemination. Perhaps needless to say, it has received various Imprimaturs down through the centuries -- and that when they were worth infinitely more than the paper they were written on. As a reminder the Imprimatur assures the Catholic that the work does not contain anything (as in ANYTHING!) against either faith or morals. Some of the great praise and approvals The Mystical City of God has received can be viewed in the following link for the first of the 4 volumes under the headings "Special Notice to the Reader" and "Approbations." THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD (http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm)
I believe the unbiased and sincere Catholic should be be suitably impressed at all the papal and other ecclesiastical approbations The Mystical City of God has received.
A most wonderful characteristic of the Church and of properly formed and educated Catholics is that of being able to make proper distinctions when discussing their faith. In that regard I would ask that one consider that the above quote from The Mystical City of God speaks of two ensoulments, one of life itself and one of rationality, if you will.
I don't see how the idea of two ensoulments necessarily negates the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you disagree I would ask that you spell out exactly how it does and back it up with a definitive (i.e., de fide) assertion of the Church regarding same.
It may well be that the second or rational ensoulment (if we assume for the sake of argument that there are two ensoulments) is the immortal one while the first is not. Again, although the zygote contains all the DNA that will determine the many characteristics of the fully developed human being (i.e., person) that does not necessarily mean that the science of DNA would be conclusive in terms of arguing for only one ensoulment as opposed to two ensoulments. Correct me (please not with mere emotion and or sincerity, but with actual Church doctrine) if I am wrong, but I think it could be reasonably and perhaps correctly argued that the first ensoulment creates a human being while the second ensoulment transforms that human being into a human person. I don't know of anything in Church doctrine that infallibly negates this assertion.
As sort of an aside, albeit an important one I think, and although certainly not dispositive of the matter, it may certainly be of some interest to wonder where all the literally trillions of one cell zygotes and multi-cell embryos end up that come to termination if they have immortal souls.
P.S. PLEASE: nothing that I have said should be interpreted in such as way as to take away from the extreme dignity and sacredness that the Church holds for human life from the moment of conception -- the moment the egg of the woman is fertilized by the seed of the man. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the knowing and willful termination of even the zygote (one cell human being) is murder and thus inherently evil
-
Like Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who stated in the "Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations" that black people have dark skin because they were cursed.. so am I obliged to believe EVERYTHING in either of these particular revelations, even if the total work is mystically profound and predominately in alignment with the Truth of the Church? (Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, etc) In volume one, Venerable Emmerich states that the Blessed Mother's ensoulment was "4 and 1/2 months, less three days" from the time of her conception. There is a discrepancy here with both of them, which doesn't necessarily make either of them wrong- these great mystics were human, subject to their own interpretation and understanding of the revelations given to them, and a product of the times in which they lived. I'm not discounting Venerable Mary of Agreda, (how could I?) and I don't have the information of any Church doctrine about ensoulment and conception, nor do I know if it exists in doctrinal form. (But I like to research). I really don't understand the two ensoulments or why it would be necessary, but then again, why should I understand it.
The Incarnation is obviously an entirely unique situation, but Jesus Christ, God made Flesh from the moment of the Incarnation, was also 100% human with a(perfect) human soul as well as being the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. When Mary "made haste" to visit her cousin Elizabeth after the Assumption (most scholars agree that Mary was 3 or 4 day pregnant at the time of her arrival at Elizabeth's home) the unborn John the Baptist "lept in the womb" acknowledging His Savior in utero . It just doesn't seem feasible to me that there was the slightest possibility that Christ didn't have His human soul as well at that time.
I know the last thing you want from me is some situational or circuмstantial unsubstantiated stuff- but.. I don't think there is life without a soul. When someone dies, they are not dead before their soul departs. In fact, the Church allows Extreme Unction up to an hour after declared death , because there is no certainty of true death by superfical mechanical means, there may be physical life at a deeper level that can't be detected, so the Church in it's wisdom knows this and allows for the possibility of a present soul for an hour after the declaration of death.. Once you are dead-dead extreme unction can't be given. So reversing this situation, how can an embryo or fetus even be alive without ensoulment? Isn't that what life is? What is the status of the pre-ensouled child?
I know this was not the information you requested, and I tried not to be emotional- just sincere :)
I'll keep looking. Sorry
-
Thanks for your reply josefamenendez. I think it certainly deserves a thoughtful response so I will do my best.
josefamenendez:
Like Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who stated in the "Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations" that black people have dark skin because they were cursed.. so am I obliged to believe EVERYTHING in either of these particular revelations, even if the total work is mystically profound and predominately in alignment with the Truth of the Church?
No, you are absolutely not obliged to believe everything in either of these particular revelations and the Catholic Church has never asserted that either expressly or even implicitly. The Imprimatur simply indicates that nothing which is said in the work for which it is given is against faith or morals. I am not familiar with Emerich's statement -- assuming you have reported it accurately -- but on the face of it, I cannot see that if it were true it would actually contradict ANYTHING in our Catholic faith or morals since as far as I know there is no definitive doctrinal assertion in our Catholic Religion that actually speaks to the question of how or why it is that the Negro race has dark skin. (I am no expert on the subject, but regardless of its extreme political incorrectness, I don't think we as Catholics should simply dismiss the curse of Ham as not possibly being a reasonable explanation for the color of the Negro race. I am personally undecided as to whether the curse of Ham explanation is correct and as far as I know the Church has not given any Magisterial endorsement on the subject one way or the other.)
josefamenendez:
In volume one, Venerable Emmerich states that the Blessed Mother's ensoulment was "4 and 1/2 months, less three days" from the time of her conception. There is a discrepancy here with both of them, which doesn't necessarily make either of them wrong- these great mystics were human, subject to their own interpretation and understanding of the revelations given to them, and a product of the times in which they lived.
On the face of it (I am not familiar with your reference to Emmerich here) there would obviously be a discrepancy which on the face of it can not be reconciled. It would ba as if one was saying the distance of the nearest star to the Earth after the sun is an exact number of miles to the Earth at a given time while the other says it is a different distance at the exact same time. One could be objectively right or both could be objectively wrong, but both could not be objectively right at the same time. It is, of course, an examination of the objective truth not an examination of any subjective perception of that truth which concerns us here. That is why I think it is of paramount importance that we simply approach the interpretation of the writings of both Emmerich and Maria de Agreda based on the literal meaning of the words presented to us unless there is a clearly compelling reason to do otherwise.
I greatly admire the writings of both Emmerich and Maria de Agreda and am very edified in reading both of them. That said, if I came across a discrepancy in their writing, I would -- all things being equal -- tend to go with that of Maria de Agreda and that primarily because of the transcribing intermediary in the person of Clemens Wenzeslaus Brentano who was at the service of Emmerich and who has been criticized, rightly or wrongly, for embellishing the work of Emmerich in ways which supposedly have been deleterious to the accuracy of some the reported revelations made known to Emmerich.
josefamenendez:
I really don't understand the two ensoulments or why it would be necessary, but then again, why should I understand it.
Join the club! Neither do I. Life, itself is a mystery! (https://s.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo1.gif)
josefamenendez:
The Incarnation is obviously an entirely unique situation, but Jesus Christ, God made Flesh from the moment of the Incarnation, was also 100% human with a(perfect) human soul as well as being the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. When Mary "made haste" to visit her cousin Elizabeth after the Assumption (most scholars agree that Mary was 3 or 4 day pregnant at the time of her arrival at Elizabeth's home) the unborn John the Baptist "lept in the womb" acknowledging His Savior in utero . It just doesn't seem feasible to me that there was the slightest possibility that Christ didn't have His human soul as well at that time.
As you say, the Incarnation is "an entirely unique situation" so I agree with you that it does not seem feasible that Christ did not have His human soul at the time of Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth. That, of course, logically speaking would not necessarily negate the double ensoulment idea expressed by Maria de Agreda. Again, Maria de Agreda does no more say that the first born son of a temporal king is not the crown prince (potential king) and as such is due great respect by the king's subjects than she says that the thing (zygote or fertilized egg) that comes into being at the moment of conception is not a human being (potential human person) and as such is of a sacred order in nature and by that account is due great respect by all God's subjects.
josefamenendez:
I know the last thing you want from me is some situational or circuмstantial unsubstantiated stuff- but.. I don't think there is life without a soul. When someone dies, they are not dead before their soul departs. In fact, the Church allows Extreme Unction up to an hour after declared death , because there is no certainty of true death by superfical mechanical means, there may be physical life at a deeper level that can't be detected, so the Church in it's wisdom knows this and allows for the possibility of a present soul for an hour after the declaration of death.. Once you are dead-dead extreme unction can't be given. So reversing this situation, how can an embryo or fetus even be alive without ensoulment? Isn't that what life is? What is the status of the pre-ensouled child?
You are absolutely right and the Church has never taught otherwise: there is no human life without the presence of a soul, a human soul. Death enters into the body at the moment the soul leaves just as surely as life enters into the body (the one cell zygote) at the moment of conception when ensoulment takes place. If it did not the zygote would not display the characteristics of life because it simply would not be alive. Again, regardless of whether the soul of the zygote is immortal/rational, it is due great human reverence as a very special creation of God Almighty.
-
I see this thread apparently headed for oblivion, to be deep-sixed on cathinfo, perhaps only to be resurrected in a few more years. Could it be that no one else on this forum really has the time and or inclination (or knowledge or else just plain opinion) to add anything further. If not, I guess it's adios. Thanks to anyone who at least tuned in though. :)