Cyril

[Brother Adam]

This may or may not turn into a debate, feel free to move it to Phatcatholics forum if it doesn't.


"Cyril differs from Origen and Eusebius (Arian) mainly in his anthropology. In a nutshell, one might observe that Origen sees man as incarnate soul, Cyril as "animated flesh". The only item in Origen's teaching explicitly rejected by Cyril is his doctrine of dual creation: for Cyril, the body and soul form one unity because they were created together." - [I]Christoph Schonborn ([u]God's Human Face: The Christ Icon[/u], Ignatius Press 1994, page 92){/I]

[Era Might]

I agree with Cyril.

[Brother Adam]

Yeah, me too.

[Brother Adam]

I thought people might reject Cyrils teaching that the body and soul were created together, since there are some that hold to the idea that they were created at different times and the soul was an act of special creation. I love Schonborns text. He shows that a rejection of Cyril's anthropology has not so good effects on Christology.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Origen believed that the "skins" God clothed Adam and Eve with were human flesh and that they were pure spirit before the fall.

[Era Might]

Cyril's point does not rule out evolution, because evolution deals only with the development of what would become the human body. There is a point where God has to "finish" and "perfect" what nature itself could not produce. This "perfection" would coincide with the infusion of a soul, and hence, they are created together, because even though the matter already existed, it was not a human body as such. It only became so with the infusion of a soul.

[Oik]

Era Might,

In the East, we see in a certain sense the "stain" of sin as death. Therfore, the primary consequence of sin is death itself.

Now this has implications for ones acceptance of "evolution" of the body.

It is perfectly valid argument to reject the evolution of the body once one understands the Eastern Churches view of original sin and man's nature.

For us in the East, man did not fall from prefection. As Saint Maximus said, how can perfection falls from perfection? Rather in the East, man undergoes the process of pursuing the virtous life. This is kenosis, or a self-emptying. Now, this is a condition for deification, thought it does not guarantee it. This Theosis involves the prefecting of man, however, the perfecting you have spoken of is one from fallen nature. This is clearly incompatible with the Eastern Catholic Churches approach which does not use fallen nature as Origen does which was taken up by the Western Church's Theology.


:::catches breathe:::


Now, that being said, I do not accept evolution of man's body. I do not agree that any change of the physical features of man is evolution. If ther are any changes that can be linked, they are simply chnages God saw fit to allow the Human body to have the potiential to go through and at the appointed time, those changes happened. These changes, however, are not changes in the nature of man and even these changes are not drastic ones.

For instance, science does not claim that evolution ever gave humanity wings or gills or porcupine quills or shark fins. All changes attributed to humanity have been physically comparible.

[Era Might]

[quote] This Theosis involves the prefecting of man, however, the perfecting you have spoken of is one from fallen nature. This is clearly incompatible with the Eastern Catholic Churches approach which does not use fallen nature as Origen does which was taken up by the Western Church's Theology.[/quote]

Evolution precedes the fall of man. It precedes man, period. It is not a process of fallen nature. It is God's gradual unfolding of his creation.

Evolution is not the proper domain of theology, so we should not base our acceptance or rejection of it based on theology, primarily. It is a matter of science, and our interpretation of revelation, of course, is illuminated by the natural sciences, and reason.

Indeed, from a theological perspective, evolution could be seen very much as a foreshadowing of divine theosis. Just as matter evolved and was perfected by God over many centuries, so man evolves as a person, and becomes more and more God like, until he is perfected in the Kingdom.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Oik]

Evolution precedes the fall of man.

-The "fall of man" as presented is not present in the Eastern Church. If evolution is a absolutely proven, is is only so in animals.

It precedes man, period. It is not a process of fallen nature. It is God's gradual unfolding of his creation.

-God's gradual unfolding of Creation is a Theological concept. Evolution is based on the empirical sciences. Evolution does not, from a scientific perspective, care who does what. That is not the concern of empricial observations. You point this out later. If evolution precedes man period, it only does so in animals.

Evolution is not the proper domain of theology, so we should not base our acceptance or rejection of it based on theology, primarily. It is a matter of science, and our interpretation of revelation, of course, is illuminated by the natural sciences, and reason.

-All agreed. The problem is the evolution of the body of man. If you statement is about only animals, we would have unconditional agreement.

Man's body is not evil or undone is some way. The consequence of sin of Adam and Eve for the East is physical death. So, as far as evolution goes, from a theological perspective, it is incompatible with the Eastern understanding of original sin.

Now, from a purely scientific level, evolution in the sense of a physical aspect of a species changing is undeniable. However, the problem that is often encountered is whether or not this change has progressively lead to a spontaneous and mostly unexplained appearance of another "type" (for lack of a better word). Here, I mean to point out Homo-sapien, Cro magnon (sp), Homo Erectus, etc. The empirical leap has been made in Science that these are not the same but new instances.
One can clearly see the ramifications of this argument. When is man (humanity as we know it in today's age) created? If these are unrealted humanoids, that means man's body is created by an indirect process, and his conscious self are properties of his mind also created by evolution. What is not accounted for here? It is very simple. Man was created by an evolutionary process. After this his instinct evolved into conscious self-presence. This is a very materialistic view. The aim is not to discredit, only to observe data. This is what the data points to.



Indeed, from a theological perspective, evolution could be seen very much as a foreshadowing of divine theosis. Just as matter evolved and was perfected by God over many centuries, so man evolves as a person, and becomes more and more God like, until he is perfected in the Kingdom.

-Personhood does not evolve. Personhood is who I am. Now, my intellectual actions unfold. Evolution is incompatible with Theosis. Theosis is a perfecting of self. Evolution as you explain it is a Theological concept, being an unfolding and perfecting of God's creation. Science would disagree with us both for it is only interested in what we can observe.

[Era Might]

[quote]-The "fall of man" as presented  is not present in the Eastern Church. If evolution is a absolutely proven, is is only so in animals.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean. By "fall of man", I mean the sinful act of Adam and Eve, by which they lost the Divine life of God, and hence, their immortality. This is Catholic doctrine, East or West.

[quote]-God's gradual unfolding of Creation is a Theological concept. Evolution is based on the empirical sciences. Evolution does not, from a scientific perspective, care who does what. That is not the concern of empricial observations. You point this out later. If evolution precedes man period, it only does so in animals.[/quote]

I disagree, it doesn't have to take place only in animals. Evolution refers to the evolving matter which would become man. That is, God gradually developed man's body from "the dust of the earth", as Genesis puts it. But this evolving matter was not a human body, it was only evolving matter, which would become a human being when God perfected it on a physical level and infused a soul. This is the dual composition of Cyril's theology. It doesn't mean that the matter could not have evolved, but that the evolving matter only became a "human" body simultaneously when God made it fit for a soul, and infused that soul.

[quote]Man's body is not evil or undone is some way. The consequence of sin of Adam and Eve for the East is physical death. So, as far as evolution goes, from a theological perspective, it is incompatible with the Eastern understanding of original sin.[/quote]

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Evolution has nothing to do with making man's body "evil" or "undone". As I said, it precedes man, because it refers to the evolution of matter which would eventually be "formed" by God to create man, simultaneously with the infusion of a soul.

[quote]-Personhood does not evolve. Personhood is who I am. Now, my intellectual actions unfold. Evolution is incompatible with Theosis. Theosis is a perfecting of self. Evolution as you explain it is a Theological concept, being an unfolding and perfecting of God's creation. Science would disagree with us both for it is only interested in what we can observe.[/quote]

We do indeed evolve as persons, in the sense that we become better or worse. I agree that personhood is who I am now, but who I am now has evolved, in some way, from who I was before. Maybe I was once a greedy person, and now I am so no more. This is theosis. Evolution can be seen as a natural foreshadowing of this supernatural mystery.

While of course science is only interested in matter, the duty of theology is to weave Divine truth with natural truth, faith with reason. Science asks "what", while theology asks "why".

My point is not that evolution is fact, or that I personally belive in it. I honestly know diddly squat about science. But I know something about theology, and ASSUMING that evolution is true, it can be demonstrably reconciled with Catholic theology and Scripture.

A classic example of this principle would be Galileo. Most people of his time interpreted Scripture literally, so that they couldn't accept the findings of science against their geocentric world-view (inspired by the account of the sun "moving"). But when science rules out an interpretation of Scripture about the natural world, we don't have to blindly hold on to a literal interpretation. We would reconcile Scripture with science, knowing that Truth cannot contradict. This is what we must do with evolution, IF in fact it is true.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Oik]

[quote]for Cyril, the body and soul form one unity because they were created together.[/quote]

[Oik]

[quote]Now, from a purely scientific level, evolution in the sense of a physical aspect of a species changing is undeniable. However, the problem that is often encountered is whether or not this change has progressively lead to a spontaneous and mostly unexplained appearance of another "type" (for lack of a better word). Here, I mean to point out Homo-sapien, Cro magnon (sp), Homo Erectus, etc. The empirical leap has been made in Science that these are not the same but new instances.
One can clearly see the ramifications of this argument. When is man (humanity as we know it in today's age) created? If these are unrealted humanoids, that means man's body is created by an indirect process, and his conscious self are properties of his mind also created by evolution. What is not accounted for here? It is very simple. Man was created by an evolutionary process. After this his instinct evolved into conscious self-presence. This is a very materialistic view. The aim is not to discredit, only to observe data. This is what the data points to.[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Oik' date='Apr 5 2006, 02:39 PM']for Cyril, the body and soul form one unity because they were created together.
[right][snapback]936743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree. As I said, the evolving matter did not become a "human body" until it was perfected by God on a natural level and infused with a soul. God would have taken that evolving matter, and made a human body at the same time that he infused a soul. This is entirely consistent with Cyril's point, and still leaves room for evolution.

[Era Might]

[quote]If these are unrealted humanoids, that means man's body is created by an indirect process, and his conscious self are properties of his mind also created by evolution. [/quote]

This is a form of evolution that I don't think could be reconciled to Catholic doctrine. Man cannot "develop" a soul. It was infused directly by God.

[Oik]

[quote] As I said, it precedes man, because it refers to the evolution of matter which would eventually be "formed" by God to create man, simultaneously with the infusion of a soul.[/quote]



So the "process" (which Theology would have to say is controlled by God) forms "matter." From a scientific viewpoint, this is natural selection. And futhermore, science concludes that this matter which which is formed into a humanoid gets its rationality from an evolutionary process as well.

Big problem. There is no room for the soul here.


My contention with Evolution as Sicence reveals is that it looks at humanity from a purely materialistic viewpoint.

Man is not merely body, he is a body-soul unity.
To separate the two is dualism. To deny the soul is materialism. To deny the body is spiritualiism.

Science cannot provide an adequate explaination for the origin of man's body. What is can provide is evidence that such and such humanoid did exist.

The question of whether such and such humanoid is in fact man is a question Theology and Science have to answer. Sicence looks only at empirical evidence and empirical evidence cannot account for the soul.

To argue that the soul is placed in the body at the appointed time is to argue a discontinuation of the previous humanoid with mankind.

Simply put, if science says we are genetically related to certain humanoids, then we have to accept that as an empirical observation.

Now, if Science claims that we are in fact an evolution of a souless and pre-existing humanoid or line of humanoids, this is erroreous and has to be rejected.


A similar priciple can be applied to the Sacraments.
Christian Sacramental Marriage is not an evolution of natual marriage, they are not tghe same. In fact, natural marriage was taken up into the Holy Mysteries of the Church and it now something different than natural marriage.