A Soul Is Infused At Conception

[Aloysius]

first off, do you understand that this is a matter of practice, of discipline, not of doctrine. it has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that there are 15 mysteries of the rosary. I happen to believe that previous popes would be thrilled with this addition to the Rosary.

the Rosary was not dropped from heaven by Mary. It was developed by pius men and women within the Church from the 4th century to the 12th century. St. Dominic is about the first person to spread the Rosary devotion as it exists in its 15 mystery form. Pope John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries. it contradicts nothing in the Catholic Faith.

Second off, let's get back to the discussion of twins. i have shown that the case of twins does not proove false the most probably idea that the soul is infused at conception. how do you respond?

Edited September 7, 2004 by Aloysius

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 6 2004, 08:26 PM'] first off, do you understand that this is a matter of practice, of discipline, not of doctrine. it has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that there are 15 mysteries of the rosary. I happen to believe that previous popes would be thrilled with this addition to the Rosary.

the Rosary was not dropped from heaven by Mary. It was developed by pius men and women within the Church from the 4th century to the 12th century. St. Dominic is about the first person to spread the Rosary devotion as it exists in its 15 mystery form. Pope John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries. it contradicts nothing in the Catholic Faith.

Second off, let's get back to the discussion of twins. i have shown that the case of twins does not proove false the most probably idea that the soul is infused at conception. how do you respond? [/quote]
" it's speculation on your part to say there's no difference present within the fertilized egg. it's speculation on my part to say there is a difference in there."

No, I'd say bsed upon the scientific evidence we have right now, I am not being speculative in saying there are no known differences between the two cells. Considering each has 32 chromosomes (which is ONE person, as every person is made up of 32 and only 32 chromosomes), that would mean each is still only one person. If you say this embryo is 2 people, you assert that each person has only 16 chromosomes... so are eggs and sperm also separate humans since they have 16 chromosomes?

As far as the Rosary, the Council of Nicea says that anyone who changes a written or unwritten [i]t[/i]radition of the Church is anathema. The Rosary is a [i]t[/i]radition, not a Tradition, but if we follow the Council of Nicea, we see anyone who changes a tradition of the Church is anathema. I am not saying the Pope is, but I am saying he certainly broke with tradition of Popes for centuries to add myseries to the Rosary. Also, I certainly disagree that other Popes would be happy. Why didn't think do it themselves, then? Moreover, the "preaching of the Kingdom" or whatever it is, how is that a mystery?? Moreover, this completely disrupts the system of the order of the Rosary (Joyful Mon., Sorrowful Tues., Glorious Wed., Joy Thurs, Sor Fri, Flor Sat, ALL Sunday, etc.) Where do these other ones fit in? They are suposed to go in order of Christ's Life. Would these go in before Sorrowful? If so, that would change the whole system. Friday would not always be the Sorrowful Mysteries, which would not make much sense. Also, the 150 Hail Marys were the replacement of the recitation 150 Pslams (for laymen), so I suppose that is thrown out as well (now we have 200 Hail Marys). I don't think that any Pope would have agreed with it. These "luminus mysteries" have been around since AD 33, but no Pope thought to add them to the Rosary.

[Aloysius]

that's ABSURD

the Rosary developed over the ages. according to you, the people who added the "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" are anathema

the rosary arose as a pius practice from the lay people and developed over the centuries. the church carefully guarded and saw how fruitful it was. it has changed much through the centuries, and when John Paul II proclaimed the year of the Rosary in 2002 he added a new set of mysteries through which the faithful can contemplate the ministry of Christ on earth. the proclamation of the kingdom encompases Jesus' preaching and miracles.

what do you have against this?

anyway, I'd like to see this Nicaea thing in context, cause i am positive this cannot apply to the pope adding mysteries to the Rosary.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02rd.htm"]Rosarium Virginis Mariæ[/url]

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 6 2004, 10:09 PM'] that's ABSURD

the Rosary developed over the ages. according to you, the people who added the "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" are anathema

the rosary arose as a pius practice from the lay people and developed over the centuries. the church carefully guarded and saw how fruitful it was. it has changed much through the centuries, and when John Paul II proclaimed the year of the Rosary in 2002 he added a new set of mysteries through which the faithful can contemplate the ministry of Christ on earth. the proclamation of the kingdom encompases Jesus' preaching and miracles.

what do you have against this?

anyway, I'd like to see this Nicaea thing in context, cause i am positive this cannot apply to the pope adding mysteries to the Rosary. [/quote]
I didn't say the Pope was anathema. In fact, I made a specific effort to say otherwise.

[HomeTeamFamily]

alright back to babies......hartfordwhalers, instead of asking us our thoughts and attempts to answer your question, and then immediately telling us that we are wrong....answer me this

if a woman is to carry one baby, or two or three, when would the baby(ies) get their soul......there is no other logical time, to me, than at their conception

basically i want you to answer your own question

[HartfordWhalers]

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine say when the baby kicks, as was the case with St. John the Baptist, as tradition tells us he was forgiven of Original Sin when he kicked in the womb of St. Elizabth, when Our Lady visited her. (Of couse, this was before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and required for salvation, which requirement began at Pentecost.) Therefore, according to tradition the soul must have been infused by that time (when the baby kicked the first time--I foget the technical term for it). That is when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine concluded that the soul was infused. I would say that is a logical conclusion, and it is a relief if that is the case with all these stem cell researchers, who, if this is the case, still commit mortal sin, at least do not prevent souls from getting to Heaven, since no one can be forgiven of Original Sin without Baptism, and Original Sin condemns one to Hell (or Limbo, which is a viable option to be believed by Catholics but is not defined by the Church). I am not sure when this occurs, but traditionally it has been taught that when the baby first kicks, the soul is then infused or we can assume that by this time the soul is infused, since tradition, as I said, tells us this is when St. John the Baptist was forgiven of Original Sin. Of course, one must have a soul to have Original Sin.

* edit: it is also logical that this would be the times, since the baby kicking could be a reaction to God infusing the soul into his body, which is how it has been viewed in the past.

Edited September 7, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[qfnol31]

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were not God. They didn't know everything. Also, they lived in a time where not that much was known about procreation. The Church says today that life begins at conception. We must go with what science tells us today, because that does not contradict our faith at all.

Anima is the Greek word for soul. The soul is that which gives life. A think that metabolizes and moves on its own must have a soul. It's alive. That's classical Augustine, Aristolte, etc. for you. If you disagree, go read. An embryo is alive. It metabolizes, that's how it grows. If it didn't, then you wouldn't be here. I had a class on this, and trust me, there is no possible way for a body to be alive without a soul. Anima means life. Soul is anima. An embryo is alive. It metabolizes without exterior forces working on it. It is the embryo that attaches to the wall and there it begins to grow.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 6 2004, 08:45 PM'] St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine say when the baby kicks, as was the case with St. John the Baptist, as tradition tells us he was forgiven of Original Sin when he kicked in the womb of St. Elizabth, when Our Lady visited her. (Of couse, this was before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and required for salvation, which requirement began at Pentecost.) Therefore, according to tradition the soul must have been infused by that time (when the baby kicked the first time--I foget the technical term for it). That is when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine concluded that the soul was infused. I would say that is a logical conclusion, and it is a relief if that is the case with all these stem cell researchers, who, if this is the case, still commit mortal sin, at least do not prevent souls from getting to Heaven, since no one can be forgiven of Original Sin without Baptism, and Original Sin condemns one to Hell (or Limbo, which is a viable option to be believed by Catholics but is not defined by the Church). I am not sure when this occurs, but traditionally it has been taught that when the baby first kicks, the soul is then infused or we can assume that by this time the soul is infused, since tradition, as I said, tells us this is when St. John the Baptist was forgiven of Original Sin. Of course, one must have a soul to have Original Sin.

* edit: it is also logical that this would be the times, since the baby kicking could be a reaction to God infusing the soul into his body, which is how it has been viewed in the past. [/quote]
As St. Thomas explains in the Summa , ". . the Word of God assumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect. [i]Wherefore in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul[/i]." [Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 33, Art. 2] Now this is true of all men, because the soul is the form of the body, and so it follows that the soul is required from the first instant of the existence of the body, for the body without the soul is dead. In other words, body and soul form a single hylomorphic being.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 01:26 AM'] As St. Thomas explains in the Summa , ". . the Word of God assumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect. [i]Wherefore in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul[/i]." [Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 33, Art. 2] Now this is true of all men, because the soul is the form of the body, and so it follows that the soul is required from the first instant of the existence of the body, for the body without the soul is dead. In other words, body and soul form a single hylomorphic being. [/quote]
Your convenient addition of "Now this is true of all men, because the soul is the form of the body, and so it follows that the soul is required from the first instant of the existence of the body, for the body without the soul is dead. In other words, body and soul form a single hylomorphic being." That is not what he said. That is your addition to what he said. If that is what he believed, he would have written that. He never did such a thing. I have read credible authors that state that he believed when a baby kicked is when the soul was infused. I will flip through the Summa to see if I can find it in there.

qfnol31,

"St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were not God. They didn't know everything. Also, they lived in a time where not that much was known about procreation. The Church says today that life begins at conception. We must go with what science tells us today, because that does not contradict our faith at all."

I constantly see this from people who want to reject such and such and such a teaching from them (especially traditional teachings). They are both Doctors of the Church. That means what they wrote is a large basis for the Church's belief. Pope John XXIII (I think it was) said that St. Thomas is greater in his knowledge and explanation of the Faith than all the other Doctors combined! He is called the Angelic Doctor. Do you think that your opinion is more credible that someone like St. Thomas? Or even St. Augustine, or any Doctor of the Church or any Saint of the Churhc for that matter? No, it is not.

And this is not a debate on when life begins scientifically but when the soul is infused. Please read the whole thread if you want to begin to debate, since we have already covered all you've said. Read especially the problem with your idea regarding twins, triplets, etc., which we spent some time discussing.

[HomeTeamFamily]

hartford.....i am not interested perse as to what st thomas thought or what augstine thought.....i want to know what YOU think about this.......what if a baby doesnt kick until like 3 or 4 months? is it reasonable to assume that the baby did not have a soul until then? that is outlandish

[HomeTeamFamily]

the catechism of the catholic church states:

[quote]D. Para. 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 (Cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45).

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 (GS 14 § 1; cf. Dan 3:57-80).

Para. 365: The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body (Cf. Council of Vienne [1312]: DS 902): 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. [/quote]

due to the statement "because it is animated by a spiritual soul", i can see where st thomas may have drawn his conclusion, however, when it says "man, though made of body and soul, is a unity", that means that the two must have arrived at the same time, because if they didnt, there would be no unity in them.

the following paragraph illustrates this point beautifully, as the two are not two separate natures, but rather one nature

also, because "the soul is to be the 'form' of the body" it is illogical to consider that the soul, which is one in union with the body, arises at a point in time apart from that which the body was formed, conception.

Edited September 7, 2004 by VoloHumilisEsse

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think Aquinas believed the soul was infused at conception, but not fully developed (bad terminology). To say that the soul isn't infused for 40 days is worse than Anglicanism.

[qfnol31]

Argh, double post.

Edited September 7, 2004 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 6 2004, 10:45 PM']Therefore, according to tradition the soul must have been infused by that time (when the baby kicked the first time--I foget the technical term for it). That is when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine concluded that the soul was infused...I am not sure when this occurs, but traditionally it has been taught that when the baby first kicks, the soul is then infused or we can assume that by this time the soul is infused, since tradition, as I said, tells us this is when St. John the Baptist was forgiven of Original Sin. Of course, one must have a soul to have Original Sin.

* edit: it is also logical that this would be the times, since the baby kicking could be a reaction to God infusing the soul into his body, which is how it has been viewed in the past.[/quote]
Doesn't matter if it's been discussed before. I was responding to this.

They may have been Doctors of the Church, but I remember a teaching from a Pope that says that if science is proven to be true and it doesn't contradict that which is necessary for us to belive, then we should probably find a way for that to work in our beliefs.

I know exactly what you're debating. I also think that you missed something in what I said if you think I was talking just about when life begins, however, it is necessary for us to discover when life begins for the body cannot live without the soul. It is dependant on the soul. I think that Augustine and Aquinas would both agree. I think their philosophy was probably more along the lines of the body was not alive until the point of when the baby first kicked. We know that's false. That is why science is important to this discussion, and to deny it isn't very wise.

The Church holds and has always held that the body and soul form the man together. For them to be seperate is unnatural. We were not created to be just a soul. We were not created a lifeless body. Our soul gives us our life, no?

May I ask how come, if all of this has been mentioned before, why you still persist in arguing against it? And how am I off topic from what you said. You cannot deny the authority of the Church Magesterium. Aquinas, though a Doctor, did not have this authority. If I remember correctly, a few things he said were false are dogma today..