Body - Soul Connection

CoolandCatholic · #1 Apr 24, '12, 9:55 pm

Hola a todos:

I am wondering what the Catholic church's philosophy is over the connection between soul and body. I am beginning to notice that this philosophy underpins some Catholic teachings such as salvation and repentence.

Gracias

Pfaffenhoffen · #2 Apr 24, '12, 10:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolandCatholic

Hola a todos:

I am wondering what the Catholic church's philosophy is over the connection between soul and body. I am beginning to notice that this philosophy underpins some Catholic teachings such as salvation and repentence.

Gracias

We do not know.

Ancient1 · #3 Apr 24, '12, 11:42 pm

St. Thomas Aquinas.

Theophorus · #4 Apr 24, '12, 11:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

We do not know.

Actually we do.

The Church holds that the person is body and soul together. We cannot truly speak of a human being without body or without soul. The technical term for this body-soul compound, we have lifted from Aristotle and it is a "hylomorphic compound" this is best eveloped in a Christian context in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In short every organised collection of matter, be it a speck of dust, a rock, a chair, an animal or a human person etc. has an organising principle which we term the 'form' of the matter.
An analogous example being that even though something has the same molecular constituents(the same number of carbon,hydrogen,oxygen etc. atoms)it has a different physical structure.

The 'form', the organising life principle, of the human being is the rational soul as directly created by God. That's one of the reasons we say the body is good, and that we look forwRd to its resurrection, because we are not complete without it.

**GEddie** · #5 Apr 25, '12, 3:08 am

The soul is the spiritual life of the body.

It survives body's death because it is spiritual and therefore is not subject to the law of entropy. But human soul is designed to operate a human body, and the human body is designed to support the human soul.

The functions of the human soul -- which include life, mind, and will -- require the services of the human body, and ultimately it's restoration by eternal resurrection. Body and soul go together; body is not just an earth suit for the soul.

ICXC NIKA

Pfaffenhoffen · #6 Apr 26, '12, 4:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Actually we do.

The Church holds that the person is body and soul together. We cannot truly speak of a human being without body or without soul. The technical term for this body-soul compound, we have lifted from Aristotle and it is a "hylomorphic compound" this is best eveloped in a Christian context in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In short every organised collection of matter, be it a speck of dust, a rock, a chair, an animal or a human person etc. has an organising principle which we term the 'form' of the matter.
An analogous example being that even though something has the same molecular constituents(the same number of carbon,hydrogen,oxygen etc. atoms)it has a different physical structure.

The 'form', the organising life principle, of the human being is the rational soul as directly created by God. That's one of the reasons we say the body is good, and that we look forwRd to its resurrection, because we are not complete without it.

Your explanation is fine.
But how Body and Soul connected, it is not explained nor can be for it is a mystery.

Theophorus · #7 Apr 26, '12, 4:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Your explanation is fine.
But how Body and Soul connected, it is not explained nor can be for it is a mystery.

Your question on the connectedness of body and soul implies IMO a certain Cartesian dualism in your thought, now I could well be wrong but thats what i get.

Matter does not exist without an in-forming principle, and so in reality the unity of form(soul) and matter(body) together give the true oneness of being we see in the human person. The human being is an interconnected homogenous unity of body and soul. Each part of the matter of the body is in-formed by the substantial form of the body, the human soul.

CoolandCatholic · #8 Apr 26, '12, 10:29 am

Thank you very much. Your replies were very helpful.

Pfaffenhoffen · #9 Apr 27, '12, 12:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophorus

Your question on the connectedness of body and soul implies IMO a certain Cartesian dualism in your thought, now I could well be wrong but thats what i get.

Matter does not exist without an in-forming principle, and so in reality the unity of form(soul) and matter(body) together give the true oneness of being we see in the human person. The human being is an interconnected homogenous unity of body and soul. Each part of the matter of the body is in-formed by the substantial form of the body, the human soul.

What is IMO ?
I am not against Descartes.
Remember that, with death, the soul ( "I", "me") or the spirit "goes" or "stays" or whatever, in short, I go somewhere and the body stays in the coffin, e everybody saying: "How nice was this guy" and other lies (!!!). And Me, there, listening to those enemies of mine now praising me ....

**GEddie** · #10 Apr 27, '12, 12:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

What is IMO ?
I am not against Descartes.
Remember that, with death, the soul ( "I", "me") or the spirit "goes" or "stays" or whatever, in short, I go somewhere and the body stays in the coffin, e everybody saying: "How nice was this guy" and other lies (!!!). And Me, there, listening to those enemies of mine now praising me ....

Except that if that paradigm is correct, you could not see or hear them, because your ears and eyes are dead, and so is your audio-visual brain inside your dead head.

That is the problem with Cartesianism: it ignores that all human functioning, even the "soulish" operations of mind and will, require the services of the human body. Everything about us requires the body in some way.

IMO = In My Opinion.

Theophorus · #11 Apr 27, '12, 2:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I am not against Descartes.

Remember that, with death, the soul ( "I", "me") or the spirit "goes" or "stays" or whatever, in short, I go somewhere and the body stays in the coffin, e everybody saying: "How nice was this guy" and other lies (!!!). And Me, there, listening to those enemies of mine now praising me ....

You see I am not a fan of Descartes, but his intentions were good, ill give him that much. Mental philosophy but good intentions. his view was basically that my soul is me and I form some unexplained connection with my body. The body then is a incidental to who I am. The resurrection of the body is unnecessary and possibily even unhelpful on this view.

The Catholic view is that my soul is not 'me', at least its not all of me but only the most important part of the whole human being, body and soul, that is me. Thats why(one of the reasons) we look forward to the resurrection of the body because we will be made complete again.

I've found the anthropology of St. Thomas as developed in the Summa Theologiae (part one questions 75-102) to be the most rational explanation of the human person I've come across yet.

Now I know this is the Philosophy forum but that the soul,is the form of the body is Dogma(council of vienne 1310ish)

Pfaffenhoffen · #12 Apr 28, '12, 8:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophorus

You see I am not a fan of Descartes, but his intentions were good, ill give him that much. Mental philosophy but good intentions. his view was basically that my soul is me and I form some unexplained connection with my body. The body then is a incidental to who I am. The resurrection of the body is unnecessary and possibily even unhelpful on this view.

The Catholic view is that my soul is not 'me', at least its not all of me but only the most important part of the whole human being, body and soul, that is me. Thats why(one of the reasons) we look forward to the resurrection of the body because we will be made complete again.

I've found the anthropology of St. Thomas as developed in the Summa Theologiae (part one questions 75-102) to be the most rational explanation of the human person I've come across yet.

Now I know this is the Philosophy forum but that the soul,is the form of the body is Dogma(council of vienne 1310ish)

I would disagree with you.
After death you go on saying "I" and "me", the same "me" and "I" that was before death. After all, you go on saying "I" and "me" if you lose the 2 legs and the 2 arms and, as a consequence, the whole body.
Body may change from the egg to being overweight but it is still the same "me".
It may die and I am still I.
And the body will ressurrect and I will be I.
Now you do not like Descartes but you are being cartesian saying that the soul is the form of the body....(just teasing you....)

I guess there could be a soul without a body. No problem.
The only problem is that God did not want to.
For that, it is enough to have the angels...

**GEddie** · #13 Apr 28, '12, 8:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I would disagree with you.
After death you go on saying "I" and "me", the same "me" and "I" that was before death. After all, you go on saying "I" and "me" if you lose the 2 legs and the 2 arms and, as a consequence, the whole body.
Body may change from the egg to being overweight but it is still the same "me".
It may die and I am still I.
And the body will ressurrect and I will be I.
Now you do not like Descartes but you are being cartesian saying that the soul is the form of the body....(just teasing you....)

I guess there could be a soul without a body. No problem.
The only problem is that God did not want to.
For that, it is enough to have the angels...

Actually, no, losing limbs is not the same as losing the whole body, because one remains physically alive.

Losing your head would be losing the body because you would lose life.

You are a living being (human being), not a spirit. You need life to be. You need your body to hold life.

To be "you" requires your body, else you'd be nobody. Literally.

ICXC NIKA.

Theophorus · #14 Apr 28, '12, 9:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I would disagree with you.
After death you go on saying "I" and "me", the same "me" and "I" that was before death. After all, you go on saying "I" and "me" if you lose the 2 legs and the 2 arms and, as a consequence, the whole body.
Body may change from the egg to being overweight but it is still the same "me".
It may die and I am still I.
And the body will ressurrect and I will be I.
Now you do not like Descartes but you are being cartesian saying that the soul is the form of the body....(just teasing you....)

I guess there could be a soul without a body. No problem.
The only problem is that God did not want to.
For that, it is enough to have the angels...

We don't speak of the same 'I' and 'me' pre and post death, at least not in English. We refer to the body/corpse of the deceased and the soul of the faithful departed, we refer to holy souls etc. We still exist but as shadows of our true selves, my soul is part of me not all of me.

Loss of arms and legs is not loss of the unity which makes me, me. If I were to loose my whole body that would be loss of my intrinsic unity and my soul would be separated from my body in a very unfortunate sundering of who I am! I continue to exist but in an unnatural way

Pfaffenhoffen · #15 Apr 29, '12, 1:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophorus

We don't speak of the same 'I' and 'me' pre and post death, at least not in English. We refer to the body/corpse of the deceased and the soul of the faithful departed, we refer to holy souls etc. We still exist but as shadows of our true selves, my soul is part of me not all of me.

Loss of arms and legs is not loss of the unity which makes me, me. If I were to loose my whole body that would be loss of my intrinsic unity and my soul would be separated from my body in a very unfortunate sundering of who I am! I continue to exist but in an unnatural way

Theophorus (beautiful nick), now that you have spoken more clearly, I must say that I total and strongly disagree with you.
Maybe the problem is with the English Language. I know the distinction between Body and Corpse but I never took it seriously in thought. It is like you have the distinction between hen and chicken that we do not or between fingers and toes that we dont.
As you think in English you are realizing a distinction that it is too much.
Your explanation of the loss of the head distinct of the loss of the legs and arms had not justification. You just made a statement (it is like that) but you did not justify.

What worried me most was your sentence: " We still exist but as shadows of our true selves, " which I think it is not Christian. The greeks, yes, and the romans, the egyptians, the jews used that image but not the Christians. Jesus was crystal clear when he said in replying to the fella who asked whose wife was of the guy who married 7 times, Jesus said that we would be like the angels in Heaven. Never a shadow of ourselves.

Look, Theophorus, what I think that is making trouble to you is that unity must be joining 2 parts: Body and Soul. If one is missing, then there is no Unity, what is wrong. Look, every 7 years almost all the cells in the body changed (except some like the ovula). Are we different, because all the cells change?

There is no difference between these 2 images if they belong to the same soul:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/..._470x313,0.jpg

It is the Soul which the "I" or "me" or whatever in English, the "me, nick Pfaffenhofen (Pf)". PF+Body.

But God is not a robot. God was wishes and wills. God could ressuscitate the Body after 100 years of Death. Listen: some will be dead on their bodies longer than other, what could be thought unjust. But God wanted it that way, that all the ressurrected at the same time. It does not depend on us, on our wishes and thoughts.

Now, closing: I think that you should hope for better. It is YOU and I who are going to Heaven, in OUR full glory, light and happiness and not just a part or shadow of ourselves. I hope that you will hope that too....