Dialogue w/ Protestants over who man is

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1066638' date='Sep 19 2006, 12:55 PM']Why not? When we say 'our [u]souls[/u] will spend eternity in heaven at the resurection of the body' do we not mean our own personal entire human existance will be there, thus the use soul can mean entire human in this instance?[/quote]when do we say that? any soul that receives its judgment before the second coming is already spending eternity in heaven, if of course that is what the soul deserves. this soul would not be an "entire human existance" b/c it is separated from the body. when Jesus comes again, that soul will receive a glorified body, and then it will be entire. but, we wouldn't call that body-soul combination a "soul", we would call it a "human person." i suppose that one could use "soul" in some colloquial way to refer to the whole person (as in, for example, when someone says, "oh, you poor soul!"). the CCC, #363 refers to the colloquial use of the word as well, as it is occasionally found in the bible. but, strictly speaking, the soul is the animating principle of a person, and not itself the entire person. in theology, we always want to be as precise with our wording as possible.


[quote]Also, is not CCC 362-368 fairly certain on this?[/quote]yup! you seem to have found your answer, and from what i can tell, this section only affirms what i have been saying.



[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1066738' date='Sep 19 2006, 03:21 PM']Christians can affirm a tri - partite anthropology. In fact, Paul seems to do so on a couple of occasions. [/quote]are you sure about this? it has always been my understanding --and the CCC affirms this (#367)-- that a tripartite anthroplogy would be incorrect. the CCC references the 4th Council of Constantinople. i believe the pertinent info is found in Canon 11:[list]Though the old and new Testament teach that a man or woman has one rational and intellectual soul, and all the fathers and doctors of the church, who are spokesmen of God, express the same opinion, some have descended to such a depth of irreligion, through paying attention to the speculations of evil people, that they shamelessly teach as a dogma that a human being has two souls, and keep trying to prove their heresy by irrational means using a wisdom that has been made foolishness.

Therefore this holy and universal synod is hastening to uproot this wicked theory now growing like some loathsome form of weed. Carrying in its hand the winnowing fork of truth, with the intention of consigning all the chaff to inextinguishable fire, and making clean the threshing floor of Christ, in ringing tones it declares anathema the inventors and perpetrators of such impiety and all those holding similar views; it also declares and promulgates that nobody at all should hold or preserve in any way the written teaching of the authors of this impiety. If however anyone presumes to act in a way contrary to this holy and great synod, let him be anathema and an outcast from the faith and way of life of Christians.
[/list]you can read the rest of the council here:
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm[/url]


[quote]I'm not sure what "spiritual souls" are. It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too! If you want to distinguish between humans and animals, just use a standard tri - partite division of the soul (appetitive, part concerned with honor, and rational/spiritual). You can then argue that animals don't have a rational soul. This also takes care of the (apparent) problem with the "spirit" terminology[/quote]i don't see any problem with refering to the human soul in this way. did you read the article i linked to in my earlier post? the CCC uses this phrase "spiritual soul" as well, in #364, 365, and 366.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

I remember seeing something like this on another thread recently.

Asserting two souls is heretical and is not what tripartite anthropology means in the Catholic context.

revp is correct in suggesting that St. Paul assumes a tripartite anthropology and this is not an uncommon approach in Catholic thought. See "Theology in History" by Henri de Lubac if you don't believe me.

And in a way perhaps less profound than St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas has a tripartite anthropology.

And actually the Catechism seems to reflect the tripartite model. I can't lookup quotes right now, but I'm pretty much positive.

Here is a quote about the de Lubac book I mentioned:

[quote]The second section, comprised entirely of an unpublished work on tripartite anthropology tracing the body-soul-spirit distinction from St. Paul, the patristic tradition, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, up to the modern period, will prove an invaluable guide for further study and reflection.[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is a thread from two years ago:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=17220&mode=linearplus"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...mode=linearplus[/url]

[jswranch]

To all those who feel the tripartite of man [s]is[/s] can be an orthodox teaching (that man may be made up of a soul, spirit, and body such that man= soul+spirit+body), I ask you to state your case from councils, papal statements, and church fathers. I am currently under the impression that tripartite/trichomomism man is incompatible with Catholic dogma. Please help me understand. Here is my current data:

[quote][u]Vatican I D:1783 [/u]
[God] fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.[/quote]
[quote][u]Lateran IV D:428[/u]
[God created] ... the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.[/quote]
[quote][u]Ott, Man consists of two essential parts-a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.): [/u]
Again incompatible with Church dogma is the trichotomism taught by Plato, the gnostics, manichaeans, apollinarians, and in recent times also by GUnther, according to which man is composed of three essential component parts, the body, an animal soul, and a spiritual soul.
...
The Fathers defend dichotomism notably against the Christologically false teaching of Apo!linaris of Laodicea founded on trichotomism. The locution" Spirit and Soul" serves on occasion as a designation of the higher and the lower soul-life, without involving the distinction between two principles.[/quote]
[quote][u]Gen 2:7[/u]
And the Lord God formed man out of the slime of the earth, and breathed in his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (multiple other verses also apply)[/quote]
[quote][u]CCC Body and Soul but truly one[/u] (paraphrase)
362 The human person... is a being at once coporeal and spritual.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.[/quote]
As per 367, I understand 'duality of the soul' to mean person= body+ spiritual soul (aka spirit) + animal soul (aka soul).
[quote][u]New Advent: Soul[/u]
This Pauline system [1Thess5, Heb4], presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi-Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers -- the doctrine of the Trichotomy. According to this, man, perfect man (teleios) consists of three parts: body, soul, spirit (soma, psyche, pneuma). [/quote]
Perhaps we are discussing two different things.

[jswranch]