To Ghosty: continuing body/soul conversation


#1

Originally Posted by Ghosty
Ok, show me where this is said, and we can discuss it properly.

Here you go.

I’m quoting from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (p. 97)

The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)

Body and soul are connected with each not merely externally like a vessel and its contents, a shop and its pilot (Plato, Descartes, Leibniz), but as an intrinsic natural unit, so that the spiritual soul is of itself and essentially the form of the body. The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) condemned as heretical: quod anima rationalis seu intellectiva non sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter. D 481, cf. 738, 1655

The decision was directed against the Franciscan theologian Johannis Olivi (+1298), who taught that the rational soul was not of itself (immediately) the essential form of the body, but only mediately through the forma sensitiva and vegetiva, which is really distinct from it. This would destroy the essential unity of human nature replacing it by a dynamic unity of operation. This decision of the Council of Vienne does not imply a dogmatic recognition of the Thomistic teaching of the uniquenesss of the substantial form or of the Aristotelian-Scholastic hylomorphism.

According to Gn. 2, 7, the slime, by virtue of the creation of the soul, becomes a living human body, and thus a component part of human nature. Acoording to the vision of Azechiel 37, I et seq., the dead members of the body are awakened to life through the spiritual soul.

The Fathers conceive the attachment of body and soul as such an intrinsic one that they compare it to the Hypostatic Union. Cf. the Symbol Quicumque (D 40). St Augustine teaches: “From the sou the body has feeling and life” (De civ. Dei XXI 3, 2. Cf. St JOhn Damascene, De fide orth. 11, 12.)


#2

Yes, that would be the Council of Vienne which I addressed in the previous thread. I agree 100% with the declaration from the Council of Vienne, it’s just not saying what you are implying.

As I stated on the other thread, the point of that declaration is that humans don’t have two natures, but a single nature, that of body and soul combined. The relevence of this point is brought up in the Council by addressing the heresy that Jesus had a human body but not a human soul. The point is that a human being must have a human body and a human soul, which I don’t disagree with at all.

This is very, very different from what you are saying, which is that the biology of the human being can not exist without a human soul. The biology can exist, it’s just not human in nature. You could not call a human-bodied animal a human in theological terms, because a human is given shape by the soul in the body, not by the soul AND the body. See my post previous to yours on the other thread for more detail.


#3

[quote=Ghosty]Yes, that would be the Council of Vienne which I addressed in the previous thread. I agree 100% with the declaration from the Council of Vienne, it’s just not saying what you are implying.
[/quote]

Apparently you don’t agree 100% because as you’ll see from what I quoted above:

by virtue of the creation of the soul, becomes a living human body

That means that you can’t have a human body without a human soul. It is by virtue of the creation of the human soul, that there comes to be a living human body.

You could not call a human-bodied animal a human in theological terms

There is no such thing as a non-human human-bodied animal! Can’t you see how this is an oxymoron? A body is human if and only if it is in-formed by a human soul. It is theologically impossible for a body to be human without belonging to a person with a human nature, including a human soul.

Your attitude is the kind of thing Br Creos Mary maybe alluded to in another thread. Both MATTER and spirit is good and created by God. To attribute a human body to a non-human, apart from being a contradiction in terms and an absurdity in theology, reflects a lack of awareness of the goodness of the human body. A human body expresses the value of humanity and the value of a person. This cannot be assumed by a non-human animal. To equate the bodies of humans and the bodies of non-humans as both being human is a serious error apart from it being a logical absurdity.

And there is an infinite ontological gap between a non-human animal and a human being. Non-human animals do not have an intellect at all and do not have a will at all thus they cannot know and love at all. They do not possess reason at all. That’s why we call man the rational animal, meaning that he is an animal endowed with reason.

This infinite, unbridgeable, ontological gap encompasses not only the soul but also the body. You are separating the two. What makes a body a plant, animal or human is whether a plant soul, animal soul or human soul inheres in the body as its essential form. A body doesn’t just “house” a soul.


#4

tuopaulo: You are apparently not listening to me, because you keep repeating yourself even when I show that we agree. When I say human body, I’m speaking in biological terms. The Council of Vienne has absolutely nothing to do with biological terminology. I’ve said repeatedly that in theological terms the hominid body could not be called human. How many times do I have to repeat that?

A human body expresses the value of humanity and the value of a person. This cannot be assumed by a non-human animal. To equate the bodies of humans and the bodies of non-humans as both being human is a serious error apart from it being a logical absurdity.

Show me where the Church says this in biological terms. I’ll wager you can’t because the Church does NOT speak in biological terms. Furthermore, the Church is NOT infallible in matters of science, only in matters of faith and morals. Did you even read the Catholic Answers tract on the subject? Let me quote it:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul…So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”

I’ll remind you that this tract has Impramatur and Nihil Obstat. This means it has been reviewed by a Church authority and found to have *no errors regarding the faith. A body that is developed from previous biological forms, and inherited from our parents. Notice it doesn’t say “modeled after previous biological forms”, but inherited from our parents. *If we are free to believe that the human body was a) developed from previous biological forms, and b) is inherited from our parents rather than specially created, then we are free to believe that Adam inherited his body, which became human with his ensoulment, from his non-human parents. This is very simple logic. You are of course also free to believe that Adam was made from clay.

Your attitude is the kind of thing Br Creos Mary maybe alluded to in another thread. Both MATTER and spirit is good and created by God. To attribute a human body to a non-human, apart from being a contradiction in terms and an absurdity in theology, reflects a lack of awareness of the goodness of the human body. A human body expresses the value of humanity and the value of a person. This cannot be assumed by a non-human animal. To equate the bodies of humans and the bodies of non-humans as both being human is a serious error apart from it being a logical absurdity.

I agree that matter and spirit are created by God, and are good. What exactly is your point? Your other statements are merely bluster without substance. Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn’t make it any more correct.

And there is an infinite ontological gap between a non-human animal and a human being. Non-human animals do not have an intellect at all and do not have a will at all thus they cannot know and love at all. They do not possess reason at all. That’s why we call man the rational animal, meaning that he is an animal endowed with reason.

Absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

This infinite, unbridgeable, ontological gap encompasses not only the soul but also the body. You are separating the two. What makes a body a plant, animal or human is whether a plant soul, animal soul or human soul inheres in the body as its essential form. A body doesn’t just “house” a soul.

I must conclude that you simply do not read much that I write, because I said this before you did!

You are speaking theologically, however, and that is a wholly different language from biology. In biology we say “human body” to refer to the DNA structure that human beings have, because biology does not take souls into account. In biological terms the body doesn’t house a soul either, because the existance of the soul can’t be determined biologically at all. Would you prefer if I just said hominid instead of human body?

Tell you what, you find me something with Imprimatur that says that the human body could not have evolved, and I’ll believe you. I don’t want your opinion, or any theological speculation, I want something current with an Imprimatur. I will merrily drop the subject all together if you can find that for me. Until then you are merely offering your opinion, an opinion that is contradicted by officially sanctioned and recognized Catholic writings from this very website.


#5

[quote=Ghosty]tuopaulo: You are apparently not listening to me, because you keep repeating yourself even when I show that we agree. When I say human body, I’m speaking in biological terms. The Council of Vienne has absolutely nothing to do with biological terminology. I’ve said repeatedly that in theological terms the hominid body could not be called human. How many times do I have to repeat that?
[/quote]

You need only say it once. I didn’t realize you had said it before. :slight_smile:

But the human body has everything to do with biology. If modern biological terminology calls non-human bodies human, then there is something seriously wrong with modern biological terminology and such terminology should be discarded.

A body is either human or it is not. There’s no such thing as a “sub-human” or “half-human” (what some Nazis or Darwinists or certain members of MENSA may believe notwithstanding). A body is not human in one sense but non-human in another.

Furthermore, the Church is NOT infallible in matters of science, only in matters of faith and morals.

The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, including when faith and morals intersect with the claims of “science” Same thing with any other human field of study – be it history, aesthetics, philosophy, or what have you. The nature of the intersection need not be direct as the Church’s competency extends not only to that which has been directly revealed by God but also that which is closely related to it or is necessary to sustain the practice of faith and morals.

So if scientists claim that polygenism is true, then the Church has the authority to proclaim it false on the basis of it contradicting what has been revealed by God either in Genesis or elsewhere.

Likewise if scientists claim that the bodies of what the Church teaches are non-humans are human then she has the authority to proclaim it false on the basis of it contradicting divine revelation and true philosophy, philosophy being within the competency of the Church as it is a necessary foundation for theology.

It is an error to separate faith/morals from other kinds of human knowledge, to “compartmentalize.” All fields of human knowledge form an organic unity, with theology as the “queen” of the sciences. St Thomas put the sciences (“scientia”) in relation to one another and did not separate them and considered theology to be a true science (“scientia”)

If we are free to believe that the human body was a) developed from previous biological forms, and b) is inherited from our parents rather than specially created, then we are free to believe that Adam inherited his body, which became human with his ensoulment, from his non-human parents.

Even so that would not mean that one is free to hold that the body of Adam at the moment of it being given life with a human soul was materially indistinguishable from his “father” and “mother’s” body. The soul is the essential form of the body – this means that if a body has materially the exact same properties as a human body, then that body must also be human and be endowed with a human soul.

To believe otherwise is absurd for it would mean that Adam’s “father” and “mother” would have seemed to reason, seemed to know, seemed to love, seemed to have an intellect, seemed to have a will, when in fact they did not. They would be in essence what some philosophers call “simulacra,” things that appear to be humans and persons in every way but which are not. Some evolutionists say that an earth appearing old when it is young makes God out to be a liar. How much more so would this make God out to be a liar? Animals that appear human, appear to be persons with intellects and wills, but are in fact savage beasts?

In biology we say “human body” to refer to the DNA structure that human beings have, because biology does not take souls into account.

Maybe that’s the problem with “science” these days. It doesn’t take souls into account or effectively denies their existence and has thus lost its “soul.”

because the existance of the soul can’t be determined biologically at all.

THAT, my friend, is where you are wrong, wrong, wrong. One of the major pro-life arguments is that we can know that a zygote is a human being from its biology. If the zygote were not a human being, then abortion would not be an unlawful homicide.

If one divorces biology from all other fields of knowledge including philosophy then what you say may be true. But that’s not how biology should work any more than the study of music should be divorced from other fields of knowledge such as mathematics (which plays a role in some music studies).

Would you prefer if I just said hominid instead of human body?

I definitely would prefer it :smiley:

Thank you. :slight_smile:


#6

[quote=tuopaolo] Even so that would not mean that one is free to hold that the body of Adam at the moment of it being given life with a human soul was materially indistinguishable from his “father” and “mother’s” body. The soul is the essential form of the body – this means that if a body has materially the exact same properties as a human body, then that body must also be human and be endowed with a human soul.
[/quote]

when you say “materially”, do you mean “substantially”, or “physically”?

if it’s the former, then i am going to go out on a limb and say that ghosty wouldn’t disagree with you.

if it’s the latter, though, then i would say not; i know i would definitely demur.

[quote=tuopaolo]To believe otherwise is absurd for it would mean that Adam’s “father” and “mother” would have seemed to reason, seemed to know, seemed to love, seemed to have an intellect, seemed to have a will, when in fact they did not. They would be in essence what some philosophers call “simulacra,” things that appear to be humans and persons in every way but which are not. Some evolutionists say that an earth appearing old when it is young makes God out to be a liar. How much more so would this make God out to be a liar? Animals that appear human, appear to be persons with intellects and wills, but are in fact savage beasts?
[/quote]

and here, perhaps, is my answer…

i don’t think ghosty is saying that an un-souled hominid body that is physically identical to an en-souled human body would be behaviourally indistinguishable from the human - i think he would prbably tell you that the hominid would act like a monkey or an ape, or something, but would not exhibit evidence of higher rational functioning.

that’s the way it seems to me, anyway.


#7

John Doran has it exactly right as to what my view is. Substantially such a creature would not be human, but materially it would be. It’s not unlike our own belief in Transubstantiation, actually. To all scientific means, the Eucharist is absolutely indistinguishable from bread and wine, even provoking allergic reactions in those who have allergies to wheat. In all physical tests, the Eucharist seems to be bread and wine.

i don’t think ghosty is saying that an un-souled hominid body that is physically identical to an en-souled human body would be behaviourally indistinguishable from the human - i think he would prbably tell you that the hominid would act like a monkey or an ape, or something, but would not exhibit evidence of higher rational functioning.

Exactly again. A hominid that was physically identical to a human, just as the Eucharist is physically identical to bread, would not act in any higher capacity from an animal. It would not have the substance of humanity.

So if scientists claim that polygenism is true, then the Church has the authority to proclaim it false on the basis of it contradicting what has been revealed by God either in Genesis or elsewhere.

That would be a matter of faith, not of science specifically. Science could still say that the evidence points to polygenism, and the Church could not infallibly claim that science was wrong in that assertion. It could only claim that the appearance does not match reality, as in the case with the Eucharist.

THAT, my friend, is where you are wrong, wrong, wrong. One of the major pro-life arguments is that we can know that a zygote is a human being from its biology. If the zygote were not a human being, then abortion would not be an unlawful homicide.

No, I’m afraid you misunderstand. There is no way to scientifically measure a human soul. Science can tell you that a zygote is a human being only in the realms that science can measure. To go back to the Eucharist example, if you were to give someone a Eucharistic host and an unconsecrated host without telling them which was which, they would not be able to tell you by examining them which one was the Body of Christ. They could only tell you that both had all the measurable properties of bread. When science determines that a zygote is human, it’s necessarily speaking only in measurable terms. This is one of the limits of science, one that scientists readily recognize.

So, to finally beat my Eucharist example into the ground, the hominid is the unconsecrated host, and the human is the Eucharist. Both come from the exact same batch of bread, and are physically identical to all forms of measurement, such that looking at them you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. One could even say that Christ inherits His purely physical properties in the Eucharist from the bread. Substantially, however, they are completely different things.

Hominids (what I previously called animal-souled-human-bodies) = unconsecrated host, and human = Eucharist.

I hope that clears things up.


#8

@Ghosty
Let me reply to both you in this one single post as you bring up similar issues.

[quote=john doran]when you say “materially”, do you mean “substantially”, or “physically”?
[/quote]

By “materially” I mean as in matter versus spirit or “corporeally.” So if a body were indistinguishable from a human body in terms of what is naturally visible (including the way it moves or the sounds it makes, etc.), then it would have to be a human body with a human soul.

i don’t think ghosty is saying that an un-souled hominid body that is physically identical to an en-souled human body would be behaviourally indistinguishable from the human - i think he would prbably tell you that the hominid would act like a monkey or an ape, or something, but would not exhibit evidence of higher rational functioning.

You seem to be using “physically” in a sense different than I understand the word (I understand it to be equivalent to “materially”) since if the non-human were to act like a savage beast and not exhibit any evidence of being endowed with reason, intellect or will, then it’s body would not be physically identical to a human body.

I think what you are talking about is the body’s intrinsic material/physical properties as being identical to that of a human body. Things like how it moves or makes sounds in relation to other material bodies (like rocks or trees or other animals) would be extrinsic material/physical properties.

I acknowledge that holding that there exists non-human bodies which are materially/physically identical to human bodies in terms of their intrinsic properties would not directly contradict Catholic dogma. However holding that there exists non-human bodies which are materially/physically identical to human bodies in terms of their properties both intrinsic and extrinsic, would contradict Catholic dogma ISTM. If Ghosty were saying only the former but not the latter, then I apologize for failing to understand him :slight_smile:

@Ghosty re:science and souls
I disagree with you here since science can see a body, determine that it has the same properties, both intrinsic and extrinsic, as a human body and thus conclude (in conjunction with philosophy as opposed to divorced from it) that it is indeed a human body with a human soul. If you say otherwise than that would mean science cannot conclude for example that blacks have human bodies with human souls.


#9

If Ghosty were saying only the former but not the latter, then I apologize for failing to understand him

I don’t quite understand what you mean by the way something moves or the sounds it makes, since those things are not a part of any intrinsic element to my knowledge. Our arms bend they way they do because of the way they are hinged, not because they are human arms. Our bones creak when we stretch because of the materials they are made of, not because they are human bones. One could make an identical set up with synthetic materials and it would move and sound the same.

To use the Eucharistic example again, the Blood of Christ in the Communion splashes in the cup like wine, not like blood, and it tastes like wine and not like blood. It does not taste like wine because it is the Blood of Christ, but rather because it has the accidents of wine, accidents that actual wine also shares. Extrinsic means extraneous, non-important, non-unique factors. Intrinsic means inherent, special, defining factors. The extrinsic reality of the Eucharist is bread and wine, but the intrinsic reality is the Body and Blood of Jesus. Indeed, the bread and wine cease to exist at all at consecration, replace instead by the Body and Blood. Going back to hominids, they would have the extrinsic reality of a human (purely in a material, atomic sense not in the use of reason or any abstractions), but would lack the inherent quality, the human soul, which makes them human. They would move, creak, and smell like a human because we share such extrinsic elements, but their intrinsic elements would be entirely different, meaning that they wouldn’t have the use of reason and such which comes from the human soul.

I have the feeling that we are indeed saying the same thing, I’m just confused by your use of the words extrinsic and intrinsic.

I disagree with you here since science can see a body, determine that it has the same properties, both intrinsic and extrinsic, as a human body and thus conclude (in conjunction with philosophy as opposed to divorced from it) that it is indeed a human body with a human soul. If you say otherwise than that would mean science cannot conclude for example that blacks have human bodies with human souls.

Yes, science can see a body, and can determine that two bodies are extrinsically identical, but there is no way for determining intrinsic factors in an empirical way. Science, in order to be a useful tool, must remain fully empirical. In order to make proper use of this tool, however, we must utilize it in a manner informed by faith, the non-empirical. A hammer, to be a useful hammer, must have a hard head and a handle, and does not require an education in how to build a house. In fact, including such an education in a hammer in the form of an attached encyclopedia, or a microchip, either adds nothing to the tool or makes it less useful. For it to be properly used, however, it must be utilized by someone who knows how to build, or at least how to hammer a nail. Science is the hammer, faith is the knowledge that guides it. The hammer does not recognize the nail it hits, or the house it builds, nor does it need to in order to be useful. Science is the same with regards to non-empirical matters. To wield science without being informed in non-empirical matters, however, is like swinging a hammer recklessly and without knowledge of its proper use.

Science doesn’t have to recognize the soul to be useful, because science is purely a tool for engaging empirical matters, and the soul is not an empirical subject. This is not to say that the soul is somehow less real that the empirical, far from it! I would argue that the non-empirical is much more “real” than the empirical, because the empirical is derived from the non-empirical. This is why “materialism” is an absolutely silly proposition, and those scientists who claim to wield science “without the burden of the non-empirical” are deluding themselves. The fact remains, however, that for science purely in the context of being a useful tool for the fully informed human mind, recognizing the non-empirical is as as unimportant as the hammer recognizing the nail.

Science can’t determine that blacks have human bodies with human souls, but it can’t determine that ANY race has human bodies with human souls. Scientists, informed by the non-empirical, can determine that all people have souls and human bodies, however. It’s a very important distinction to make.


#10

Ghosty, are you postulating that an entirely human body (biologically) with a fully functional human brain, but no soul, would be unable to conduct higher abstract reasoning? Is an entirely healthy biological human body with no soul in any way less intelligent than one with a soul?

I would be interested in reading your critique of this article if you had the time. I previously thought exactly as you seem to, but evidence such as this has really given me some cause to re-think the nature of the soul.


#11

There are certain aspects of intellect that the Catholic faith states comes from the rational, human soul. This isn’t to say that animals are incapable of problem solving, or even of relating to one another in an affectionate manner, but rather to say that the higher, abstract principles of thought exist by virtue of the immortal human soul. This would be things like true love, full personal identification and the full identification of others, the full realization of “other” as a concept, ect. In these matters, the human brain can produce a material reaction, but it is necessarily by virtue of the human soul, and not by virtue of any chemical reactions that we have these higher thoughts and emotions.

I’ll check out that article and get back to you on it. I will say, however, that in just the first paragraph the author has stepped into logical falacy when they say:

And if no good evidence for the soul exists, then the only remaining alternative is materialism - that the mind is not separate from the brain, but that it arises from and is produced by nothing more than neural activity within the brain.

No good evidence exists that I am not dreaming right now, so the only alternative is to believe that nothing I do matters as I’m really sleeping. It’s obvious how absurd this proposition is. Lack of evidence, espescially when you’re already restricting your evidence base to the purely material, does not rule out other possibilities. I’ll see what the rest of the article has to say, but it’s likely that it already assumes the theistic stance false, and tries to build up an “alternative” argument, which is ultimately fruitless hand-waving. I’ll keep an open mind, however, as I used to hold to a purely materialist belief system as well :slight_smile:


#12

He is an atheist, and he uses a number of neurological case studies to show that our consciousness, personality, self-identity and even our will are inextricably linked to the physical operation of our brains… which does seem to leave little room for the soul. What bothers me the most is that while none of this casts the dogma of the resurrection into any doubt, since it accepts that we are not full human persons without our bodies, I cannot find any grounds to reconcile the evidence with the peculiar Catholic dogma of the particular judgement. That our soul is supposed to conscously persist after death without the means of our consciousness seems wholly irrational in light of modern neurology.


#13

The soul affects the body, and the body affects the soul.
That is to say that empirically the effect of the soul may be discerned (even by science) in the body.
That does not mean that the soul is itself locatable by present means, although in some sense the soul is detectable.

Is the sould “in” the brain just because the brain is required for the detection of the soul – no.

Take one possibility. The science of atomics relies on probability.
A “machine” of randomness.
A soul would merely need to modify randomness in the location of the body in order to affect it, without it being detectable itself.

Some methods of reordering a random sequence still appear to all scientific observations to be random, — but the outcome of anything dependent on that random sequence will act differently.

No one knows how the soul affects the brain, but it is through that channel that the strictly human effects of the soul are detected.
What I suggest is just one possibility.

I cannot see that human effects would be required to be assisted by a change in biology. For the same atom, whose interactions are governed by probability, can act differently depending on the “dice”. Just so, the same Adam, can behave differently once the human soul is inhered.


#14

[quote=Ghosty]I don’t quite understand what you mean by the way something moves or the sounds it makes, since those things are not a part of any intrinsic element to my knowledge.
[/quote]

I wasn’t saying they were intrinsic properties. I was saying they were extrinsic properties. I’ll explain what I mean below.

To use the Eucharistic example again,

Your use of this example leads me to believe that your view cannot be squared with Catholic dogma.

If a body has the same visible properties as a human body with a human soul, then it must be a human body with a human soul. By visible properties I don’t mean just the cellular structure inside the body (what I meant by “intrinsic”) but also how the body interacts (whether consciously or not) with the environment (what I meant by “extrinsic.”).

So for example if Adam’s “father’s” body made sounds (whether they were understood or not) that had the patterns of language just as Adam’s body did, then their bodies would have that same extrinsic property. If all these visible extrinsic properties of these bodies along with their intrinsic properties were the same, then to say that one body is human with a human soul while the other is not a human body with a human soul seems irreconcilable with Catholic dogma.

Science can’t determine that blacks have human bodies with human souls,

Then there is something seriously wrong with “science.”

but it can’t determine that ANY race has human bodies with human souls.

How does that make “science” any better? It makes it worse. If someone says, “I don’t just hate black people, I hate all races” that doesn’t make that person any better; it makes him worse.


#15

tuopaolo: Your definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic are seriously flawed, and they are not in any way related to the actual meanings of the words.

**in·trin·sic **

1.Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

ex·trin·sic

  1. Not forming an essential or inherent part of a thing; extraneous.

You’re talking about internal and external, which are both extrinsic areas. Do you understand the difference between substance and accident? The substance of a human being is different from the substance of a human-bodied animal, even if their accidents are identical.

By your definition, the Eucharist is both intrinsically and extrinsically identical with bread and wine; they are the exact same thing because they are identical under the microscope. I know you don’t believe this because you’re Catholic, but I suspect that you may not fully grasp the concepts your trying to speak about.

I’m trying to be as fair and charitable as possible, but if you are having difficulty with the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic then we really can’t continue this conversation in a meaningful way. If you don’t understand the principle of Transubstantiation, then I can understand why you would have trouble with what I’m proposing, but I don’t know for sure what you understand and what you don’t. I recommend you do some reading on the nature of substance and accidents, and then re-read the Church documents you’ve cited. If you think that when documents are speaking of intrinsic properties they are talking about internal biology like DNA, then you’re misunderstanding them.

I hope we can continue this conversation soon! God bless you! :slight_smile:


#16

[quote=Ghosty]tuopaolo: Your definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic are seriously flawed, and they are not in any way related to the actual meanings of the words.
[/quote]

I was using the words as they are used in contemporary analytic philosophy. You won’t find this technical definition in a regular dictionary.

And it doesn’t matter how I use the words, only what I mean by them.

But since you have a problem with it I’ll replace it with “internal” and “external.”

It is irreconcilable with Catholic dogma to say that there exists (or has existed) a body that has the same visible internal and external properties as a human body with a human soul but yet is not a human body with a human soul.

By your definition, the Eucharist is both intrinsically and extrinsically identical with bread and wine; they are the exact same thing because they are identical under the microscope.

That’s not what I said at all. The Eucharistic species would have the same visible internal and external properties as bread and wine but that wouldn’t necessarily mean that they are bread and wine. However, if a body has the same visible internal and external properties as a living human body with a human soul, then that would necessarily mean that it is a human body. Why the difference? Because we don’t have a dogma that rules out the possibility indicated in the former (in fact we have a dogma that rules it in), but we do have a dogma that rules out the posssibility indicated in the latter.


#17

but we do have a dogma that rules out the posssibility indicated in the latter.

Then please provide this dogma. You’ve only cited the Council of Vienne, and that does not teach that this is the case. All I’m asking is that you actually provide a source for your assertion.


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.