popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 20 2005, 12:10 PM'] I'm fairly certain that it's Catholic teaching that only humans and angels have spiritual natures (or souls), which is what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God. Could you please show me where Catholic teaching says that animals have temporary souls? [/QUOTE] that's Aquinas. I don't know of anything in official teaching that contradicts it nor do I know of any official teaching that supports it (but there might be). Aquinas talks about plant souls and animal souls and human souls and angelic souls, only the human and angelic is eternal but a soul is simply the animating force of life that would be present in all life. [/quote] I know of no credible philosopher who denies this fact. There are three typrs of souls: vegetative, sensate, and rational. Yes, Aquinas taught it, but he was merely repeating what had ben taught for some 1500 years at his point in history. Only the rational soul is immortal. The other souls are merely that which keeps those things in being, in the form that they are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookwyrm Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Homo neandertalensis and Homo sapiens both split of from a common ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis. This occurred less than one million years ago, if my memory serves (which I can't guarantee it does, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. ) The point is, neanderthals were on a separate branch of evolution, and not descendents of Adam per se. However, it seems that they were very civilized, being the first to actually bury their dead, etc. I think God might have given them souls, but they probably didn't inherit original sin from Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 [quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 20 2005, 05:44 PM'] Homo neandertalensis and Homo sapiens both split of from a common ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis. This occurred less than one million years ago, if my memory serves (which I can't guarantee it does, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. ) The point is, neanderthals were on a separate branch of evolution, and not descendents of Adam per se. However, it seems that they were very civilized, being the first to actually bury their dead, etc. I think God might have given them souls, but they probably didn't inherit original sin from Adam. [/quote] If I understand you correctly, that would be heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookwyrm Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 How so? That was not my intent. Please explain it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 New evolution thread for anyone interested: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=27890&st=0entry497713"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...=0entry497713[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 [quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 20 2005, 05:58 PM'] How so? That was not my intent. Please explain it to me. [/quote] I hope it didn't sound like I was accusing you of being a heretic. That was not my intention. The reason that idea would be heretical is that it is de fide that all humans (and therefore all corporeal beings with rational souls, which I am assuming from the description that they were very civilized) are descended from Adam. There can be no separate line of humans not effected by original sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 20 2005, 05:14 PM'] I hope it didn't sound like I was accusing you of being a heretic. That was not my intention. The reason that idea would be heretical is that it is de fide that all humans (and therefore all corporeal beings with rational souls, which I am assuming from the description that they were very civilized) are descended from Adam. There can be no separate line of humans not effected by original sin. [/quote] Blech. Poor neanderthals. I always liked them. Just one more case of minorities being oppressed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I believe Neanderthals were normal Homo sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 11:55 PM'] I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at? [/quote] I took the words "it seems that they were very civilized . . ." to mean that they possessed rational souls, since civilization would be impossible without the faculty of reason. Maybe I misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Yeah I'm not too clear on that. Anyways, how does the Catholic Church define humanity? Homo Sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oik Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 The Church maintains that one may believe in evolution if it does not attempt to disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in evolution. I'm with the dude, basically. I believe that some minor "adaptions" (and i use the word very specifically aand lighty) may have occurred, but fundementally, humanoids are all the same. Any differences only implies to me either this, or that what is uncovered is not an ancestor, i.e. humans and apes are close, but it is obvious that humans are not apes and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookwyrm Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 11:55 PM'] I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at? [/quote] Thanks, that's more like what I meant. I guess I didn't express it very well. -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 The Catholic Church defines humanity as the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Whether or not neanderthals were sons of Adam or human is entirely within the realm of speculation. The Church has no official teaching on neanderthals. There is much disagreement even among secular scientists as to the nature and humanity of neanderthals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now