A Soul Is Infused At Conception

[HomeTeamFamily]

yes you are right

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 7 2004, 08:40 AM'] 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. [/quote]
Clearly, you misunderstood my post, which was in two parts, the first dealing with the incarnation and the reality of the human nature assumed by the Divine Person of the Word, and the second part which focused on the fact that matter and form are both necessary, and that if the form is lacking, the matter is not actualized, i.e., it has no particular existence. Moreover, Christ's human nature is identical to that of all other men, the only difference concerns the fact that it is infused with sanctifying grace from the moment of the Word's assumption of humanity and as a consequence of this fact, it is sinless. But if you argue that His human nature, body and soul, is different than ours, it follows that He has saved no one. The soul is the form of the body, in other words, it informs the matter making it what it is, a man. The various views of pagan philosophers that it took 40 days for male conception to be complete, and 90 days for female conception to be complete, have been shown to be scientifically in error. Don't elevate the pagan philosophical views of Aristotle above the revelation of God in scripture and tradition. The Church's Magisterium has always held, in connection with both the dogma of the incarnation and the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, that the body, of necessity, is infused from the first instant of conception with a rational soul, and to say otherwise is to fall into heresy. If you wish to follow Aristotle's views you may, because I cannot force you to accept the teaching of the Church, but I will follow the [i]de fide[/i] teaching of the Catholic Church over any pagan view of man's nature. To argue that the body can exist without it's connatural form is preposterous. Matter without form is a pure potency, because matter requires form in order to be actualized. In the human person the form, i.e., the soul, exceeds the matter that it actuates and so it can, in a limited way, exist without the body while it awaits the resurrection on the last day, but the body cannot exist as a living reality without its proper form (soul).

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 4 2004, 06:08 PM'] After thinking about it for a sec...

A necessary quality for a human being is a soul, thus for a baby to be alive it would necessitate a soul. Other wise there would be more then one substantial change, and I think that one substanial change occurs at conception. [/quote]
That's right, you cannot make a distinction from when life begins and the soul is infused. They're the exact thing.

[Tony]

How exactly can 15 decades be better than 20?


And how can God not have a soul for every child? I mean.. he is God!

God doesn't sit around andgo " ooh another one, guess I better give him a soul too"..He created the babies rather if it was one at a time or nine at a time!

[DojoGrant]

HartfordWhalers,

A post was made a ways back on this thread that you never responded to. I will now repost that statement's claim that you need to respond to:

1) The Church has dogmatically declared that Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED.
2) St. Thomas argued that Mary was BORN immaculate.

3) Which is the truth? 1 or 2?

4) If 1 is true, then it necessarily follows that the soul is present at conception.
5) If 2 is true, then you claim that the Church has dogmatically taught error.

[MichaelFilo]

Man Al... your too smart. I didn't even think of that, and felt that Hartford had a point...

God bless,

Mikey

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 05:48 PM'] Clearly, you misunderstood my post, which was in two parts, the first dealing with the incarnation and the reality of the human nature assumed by the Divine Person of the Word, and the second part which focused on the fact that matter and form are both necessary, and that if the form is lacking, the matter is not actualized, i.e., it has no particular existence. Moreover, Christ's human nature is identical to that of all other men, the only difference concerns the fact that it is infused with sanctifying grace from the moment of the Word's assumption of humanity and as a consequence of this fact, it is sinless. But if you argue that His human nature, body and soul, is different than ours, it follows that He has saved no one. The soul is the form of the body, in other words, it informs the matter making it what it is, a man. The various views of pagan philosophers that it took 40 days for male conception to be complete, and 90 days for female conception to be complete, have been shown to be scientifically in error. Don't elevate the pagan philosophical views of Aristotle above the revelation of God in scripture and tradition. The Church's Magisterium has always held, in connection with both the dogma of the incarnation and the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, that the body, of necessity, is infused from the first instant of conception with a rational soul, and to say otherwise is to fall into heresy. If you wish to follow Aristotle's views you may, because I cannot force you to accept the teaching of the Church, but I will follow the [i]de fide[/i] teaching of the Catholic Church over any pagan view of man's nature. To argue that the body can exist without it's connatural form is preposterous. Matter without form is a pure potency, because matter requires form in order to be actualized. In the human person the form, i.e., the soul, exceeds the matter that it actuates and so it can, in a limited way, exist without the body while it awaits the resurrection on the last day, but the body cannot exist as a living reality without its proper form (soul). [/quote]
[b]OK, so then you claim that the embryo can have more than one soul at the same time? [/b]

"Don't elevate the pagan philosophical views of Aristotle above the revelation of God in scripture and tradition."

I'm not unless St. Augustine did, as well.

"The Church's Magisterium has always held, in connection with both the dogma of the incarnation and the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, that the body, of necessity, is infused from the first instant of conception with a rational soul, and to say otherwise is to fall into heresy."

Well, I guess since St. Augustine did the same, so he must be a heretic, as well? Moreover, the Immaculate Concpetion says that THE BLESSED VIRGIN was conceived immaculately. It doesn't say that every person is infused with a soul that way. This is similar to th argument for Christ. Just because He and the Blessed Virign, the two exceptions in all of histroy from sin, had Their Souls infused at conception, does not mean all men do.

[cmotherofpirl]

I don't recall St Augustine being declared infallible, do you?

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:49 AM'] I don't recall St Augustine being declared infallible, do you? [/quote]
I don't recall Apotheoun being declared infallible.

Hmm... Apotheoun or Augustine, Apotheoun or Augustine.. not a hard choice.

In any event, if I am a heretic, so is St. Augustine, which CLEARLY is not true, since we was canonized. Use some deductive reasoning here...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:56 AM'] I don't recall Apotheoun being declared infallible.

Hmm... Apotheoun or Augustine, Apotheoun or Augustine.. not a hard choice.

In any event, if I am a heretic, so is St. Augustine, which CLEARLY is not true, since we was canonized. Use some deductive reasoning here... [/quote]
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the teaching authority of the Fathers of the Church. We are required to hold what the consensus of the Fathers taught, but we are not required to subscribe to the unique teachings of any particular Father. Not all of St. Augustine's teachings have been accepted by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when a man is canonized as a saint, it does not mean that everything he wrote during his lifetime is [i]de fide[/i] doctrine. Augustine at times taught a form of traducianism, and the Church has definitively rejected that position. Augustine at times taught that grace was irresistible, and the Church has rejected that position. Augustine at times taught that the sexual act in and of itself transmits original sin, but the Catholic Church has rejected that position.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 11 2004, 01:02 PM'] You seem to have a very simplistic view of the teaching authority of the Fathers of the Church. We are required to hold what the consensus of the Fathers taught, but we are not required to subscribe to the unique teachings of any particular Father. Not all of St. Augustine's teachings have been accepted by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when a man is canonized as a saint, it does not mean that everything he wrote during his lifetime is [i]de fide[/i] doctrine. Augustine at times taught a form of traducianism, and the Church has definitively rejected that position. Augustine at times taught that grace was irresistible, and the Church has rejected that position. Augustine at times taught that the sexual act in and of itself transmits original sin, but the Catholic Church has rejected that position. [/quote]
1) You didn't address my post before that

2) Where does the Church say that a soul is infused at conception, in light of my previous post--I wasn't saying everything St. Augustine said was infallible. I said that between him and you, I chose him any day. Moreover, that was in response to a comment from someone who did not at all take into account the facts or the points but just left a useless one-liner: "St. Augustine isn't infallible" pretty much implying that if someone is not infallible, nothing he says is correct, regardless of evidence.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:11 AM'] 1) You didn't address my post before that

2) Where does the Church say that a soul is infused at conception, in light of my previous post--I wasn't saying everything St. Augustine said was infallible. I said that between him and you, I chose him any day. Moreover, that was in response to a comment from someone who did not at all take into account the facts or the points but just left a useless one-liner: "St. Augustine isn't infallible" pretty much implying that if someone is not infallible, nothing he says is correct, regardless of evidence. [/quote]
The doctrines of the incarnation and the immaculate conception require that the rational soul is infused at conception, to deny this is so is to fall into various other heresies. Christ is a man like all other men, this has to be true or He cannot have saved us, in other words He assumed a complete human nature from the moment of His conception.

The fact is that the soul is the form of the body, and thus they are coordinate principles which simultaneously come into being. You are confusing the views on animation with the infusion of the soul into the body. Try to avoid confusing an errant natural philosophy with theology.

Do you really believe that conception takes forty days for a male and ninety days for a female, even though we now know that it happens instantly?

I will look at your other posts as time permits.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:44 AM'] [b]OK, so then you claim that the embryo can have more than one soul at the same time? [/b]

"Don't elevate the pagan philosophical views of Aristotle above the revelation of God in scripture and tradition."

I'm not unless St. Augustine did, as well. [/quote]
As I said in a different post, not everything taught by St. Augustine is held to be true by the Catholic Church. In fact as an Eastern Catholic I can tell you that most of his teachings are of minor importance in the East. He is of course venerated as a saint, but his teachings have had no real impact on Eastern theology. You seem to have a rather particularist and western view of theology.

Why would you think that there is more than one soul? The soul is the form of the body, the body cannot exist in act without its connatural soul.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:56 AM'] I don't recall Apotheoun being declared infallible.

Hmm... Apotheoun or Augustine, Apotheoun or Augustine.. not a hard choice.

In any event, if I am a heretic, so is St. Augustine, which CLEARLY is not true, since we was canonized. Use some deductive reasoning here... [/quote]
Hmm, Apotheoun may just become the only scholar greater than Aquinas, you never know. J/K.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 11 2004, 01:31 PM'] The doctrines of the incarnation and the immaculate conception require that the rational soul is infused at conception, to deny this is so is to fall into various other heresies. Christ is a man like all other men, this has to be true or He cannot have saved us, in other words He assumed a complete human nature from the moment of His conception.

The fact is that the soul is the form of the body, and thus they are coordinate principles which simultaneously come into being. You are confusing the views on animation with the infusion of the soul into the body. Try to avoid confusing an errant natural philosophy with theology.

Do you really believe that conception takes forty days for a male and ninety days for a female, even though we now know that it happens instantly?

I will look at your other posts as time permits.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
OK, you (we) are going in circles... those declarations don't say that ALL men are immaculate from sin at conception (obviously), so you can't extend to everyone the soul at conception... simple enough.

[b]You keep skirting this question: since you say the soul is infused at conception, do you say that identical twins/triplets, etc. have only a fraction of a soul, or do you say the original embryo has more than one soul?[/b]

"Why would you think that there is more than one soul? The soul is the form of the body, the body cannot exist in act without its connatural soul."

I would think that since you said the soul is infused at conception. Either the embryo is infused at conception with 2 souls or the two or more humans that come from that embryo only have a fraction of a soul. Quite simple really.