« first day    last day (19 days later) » 

3:08 AM
@Kris check my posted answer it has a link on Fr.Hardon pre-existence view of Origen condemned by the Catholic Church. the view that a soul pre-existed without a body is condemned by the Church. I am only inclined on Jesus human soul pre-existence as it was not created but "begotten"..also I embraced the idea that Mary's soul existed in the Heart/Will of Abba Father in the beginning while Jesus in His bosom.
 
 
14 hours later…
4:45 PM
Boy, this has gotten to be a pretty good question. @jong I'm glad you're around to offer a counterpoint. I'm not entirely sure where you get those ideas. I was very surprised to learn that Jesus' soul was created at His conception because my assumption was that it was something that always existed and was infused into His body at the Annunciation.
this is not infallible statement:

> It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived.

but it would be nice if there was something that needed to be clarified, that someone would put a note on the website -> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#III1b
 
 
4 hours later…
8:43 PM
@Peter Turner have you not comprehend my answer, i did not said Jesus soul was created it is a heresy, I said Jesus soul was "begotten" co-substantial with the Father & Holy Spirit. Jesus was begotten and asumed humanity, you are the one who say it is created.
 
9:35 PM
@jongricafort I do have trouble comprehending it (I prefer milk) you kind of get in the weeds with your answers. Plus, you seem to be certain you're right about something when everybody is telling you you're wrong. Which in general is an admirable trait. But seriously, the quote I gave you from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is "he human soul of Christ created", are you saying that is wrong?
 
10:00 PM
@jongricafort you might as well stop responding to comments, we've got a chatroom.
I'm not going to claim I understand anything about ensoulment. But everything I've read coming from Cathoilc sources has stated that Jesus' human soul was created at the moment of His conception.
I am fairly certain it is heresy to say that He had two souls. But perfectly in line with Catholic Theology to say He had two natures.
 
10:46 PM
Hi guys!
So, basically, my issue is that in saying "God creates souls at the moment of conception", which is a fine belief, we obviate the flexibility church teaching allows as regards understandings of time.
Specifically, many theologians write about God's being outside of time, and that makes saying that weird, though the belief in God's outside of timeness is also just acceptable, not required
Also it's unclear what creating a soul means, that is, it is unclear how God creates souls-- certainly we know that God does not experience His life as a series of moments but rather all as one thing, so then asking when, in human terms, that happens is.. problematic.
But, yeah, obvs the Church teaches that humans are incarnate and also are humans from the moment of conception, but anything that's compatible with that (and the rest of church teaching) is okay. Or so I understand from my readings/talking to the local deacon.
 
@thedarkwanderer I think one of the things that the Church tries to avoid is any notion of a big well of souls swirling about that God chooses you from when you're conceived.
There's an old silent movie about abortion (which clearly wasn't too up on the latest Catholic theology even though the message was amazingly prophetic) where the souls of babies go into their mothers and then poof go back to heaven when they're aborted.
Things like that definitely confuse matters. I'd like, for instance, to believe that I'll meet my miscarried child in Heaven.
If, however, an insane number of souls are created and killed every day by the secondary effects of the Pill and Plan B, then if we weren't really ticking God off before, we certainly are now.
 
11:19 PM
@Peter Turner if you said that you want to uphold your Catholic badge but at the same time posting a heretical view that Jesus human soul was created not begotten then you contradicted the Apostolic Creed which is established 325AD. It is important for you to reconsider reading the Apostlic Creed when it proclaimed Light from Light and co-substantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit stemming from the word "begotten. ponder that bro.
 
@PeterTurner Oh, absolutely! And the Church is very clear on abortion. It's just less clear on exactly how time works and what it means, temporally, for God to do stuff.
 
@thedarkwanderer So in your answer where you state certainly the soul is there at the moment of conception is not an official cc statement? If it is an official statement, and it’s officially heresy to state that souls ore exist then the answer to the question “when is a new soul created?” Is upon conception. My denomination teaches that soul is not separate from the living being Soul begins to exist when life begins and. Soul ceases to exist when life ends. I
 
@Kris No, certainly the soul is there at the moment of conception. It's possible, however and as an example, that life begins prior to the moment of conception (though this seems scientifically unlikely). The official CCC passage I'd direct you to is 2270.
It's not possible, however, to have, like, disembodied souls floating around that then go into bodies (well, basically). That's the issue with pre-existance: humans are incarnate spirits so our soul and body are intertwined in a way that makes that not really make sense.
Separately, when it comes to God, time is wonky. While it would be wrong to say that souls were around and then God put them in bodies, it would be acceptable to believe that God at/before the beginning of time created your soul here and now (well, when you were concieved or whatnot). So then when is the soul made? The beginning of time or before or outside of it. But it's also acceptable to say, no, God freely chooses to create each soul here and now distinct from that initial act
Well
I'm sure there are good objections to the specific words I'm using probably, cause I'm not quoting
But the point is, the church leaves both future developments in science and theological distinctions between conceptions of time open at present
Well, a bishop.
He's arguing that life begins at conception because scientifically it seems like it does.
So, I mean, I agree
But the church doesn't officially say that the science involved is infallible. Also time stuff, again.
anyways, I'm out :)
 

« first day    last day (19 days later) »