Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: re: Reincarnation Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 90 10:41:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 192 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Joe Buehler writes: > Reincarnation itself is radically incompatible with Catholicism, > especially as regards the last things: death, judgement, Heaven, Hell. > Once you're dead, your fate is decided for all eternity. > > The council referred to was in 543; it wasn't the general council > Constantinople II, which was indeed in 553. The council was against the > errors of Origen. One of them regarded the origin of the soul. Not quite. What is being referred to *is* the Fifth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Second Council of Constantinople. This is the council which (allegedly) ratified Emperor Justinian's "anathemas against Origen", including one against the teaching of pre-existence and reincarnation. The following excerpts are from *Reincarnation in the World's Religions*, by Joseph Head and S.I. Cranston: "... At Justinian's instigation a local synod, convened in Constantinople in the year 543, condemned the teachings of Origen, and ten years later, in 553, Justinian issued his anathemas against Origen, possibly submitting them for final ratification at an extra- conciliary session of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (also called the Second Council of Constantinople). The anathemas cursed among other teachings the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul." "Quoting directly from *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (XI, 311) regarding the Fifth Ecumenical Council: 'Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. [The section on Origen was written by Father Ferdinand Prat, S.J., member of the Biblical Commission, College St. Michel, Brussels.]" > That's what this is all about: confusion in the cited reference between > reincarnation and various theories of the origin of the human soul. There is no confusion. Here is the First Anathema [curse] against Origen: "If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema." [Taken from *A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church*, Vol. 14, series 2, entitled "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church", edited by Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900), pp. 318-20.] Here is additional information: "That Origen taught the pre-existence of the soul in past world-orders of this earth and its reincarnation in future worlds is beyond question. An occasional dispute has arisen as to whether he taught pre-existence and reincarnation on this earth as presently constituted. According to *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (Article 'Metampsychosis', 1913 edition), he did so teach. ..." "It is not strange, of course, that Origen should teach reincarnation, for he was an ardent Platonist and also had strong Gnostic tendencies." [From *Reincarnation in World Thought*, Head and Cranston, page 101.] > There has been, in the past, some argument over the exact mode and > manner of the origin of the human soul. That is undoubtedly how > Cardinal Mercier got into this; he was a famous theologian, and was > presumably involved in some discussion over pre-existence, which has > nothing to do with reincarnation. Cardinal Mercier speaks for himself in *Psychologie*: "Under the term *Wiedermenschwerdung*, [again-human being-becoming], metempsychosis, [the passing of the soul at death into another body], or the transmigration of souls, a great variety of ideas may be understood: either a series of repetitions of existence under the twofold condition that the soul maintains consciousness of its personality and that there is a final unit in the series of trans- migrations; or a series of repetitions of existence ... So far as concerns the first assumption, we do not see that reason, if left to itself, would declare this to be impossible or certainly false." As to the relationship between pre-existence and reincarnation, (I am not referring to a specific church doctrine, but rather speaking logically): Pre-existence has everything to do with reincarnation. Without pre-existence, reincarnation would be logically impossible. Once one accepts the fact that the soul is in existence *before* it enters into the physical body, it becomes the next logical step to recognize the reality also of reincarnation, (unless one chooses to hold to a "literal" interpretation of several Scriptural passages which seem to speak against it.) BTW, there are many well-documented cases that have convinced those who have studied them of the reality of reincarnation, but perhaps they don't count? Also, the famous Konnersreuth Case, the stigmatism of Therese Neumann, is in fact a case of "sowing and reaping" from a former lifetime, but I have heard that many chose to view this poor soul as a "saint" rather than one in dire need of atonement for a past transgression. > The present state of Catholic doctrine is that souls are immediately > created by God out of nothing, then infused into the body. > > In the early Church, several views were held. St. Augustine, in > particular, wavered between that just mentioned and the idea that the > soul of a child was somehow derived from the soul of the parents. This > made it easier to understand original sin, I suppose. But most of the > Fathers and later teachers held the creation theory. And what has happened along the way to this present doctrine? How was the opposing doctrine dealt with? There was the questionable proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but how utterly indescribable must have been the horror of the Inquisition. Once again from *Reincarnation in World Thought* by Head and Cranston: "Soon the iron hand of the 'Holy' Inquisition was to descend over most of Europe, and for several centuries heretic-hunting on the part of the masses and clergy alike raged with unparalleled fury, sending to the stake, as sons of Satan, hundreds of thousands of these brave, free-thinking Christians. Gradually the night of enslavement over the human mind came to an end. But as to rein- carnation, the supposed curse against pre-existence of A.D. 553, followed later by the indefatigable work of the Inquisitors, proved exceedingly effective. Reincarnation was now dead to the masses of people in the West. Henceforth, and until the latter half of the nineteenth century, only among philosophers, writers, and a few daring theologians, was the doctrine to be quietly welcomed. "Let us conclude this historical survey with a quick glance at some of the religious beliefs of the Middle Ages, and then ask ourselves if it is conceivable that the philosophy of karma and rebirth could obtain a hearing among the orthodox of this time. St. Paul had confirmed the law of karma when he said: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) Jesus taught similarly: "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt 7:2) But this was opposed to the dominant belief of the Dark Ages-- the Old Testament teaching of original sin. Humanity for countless generations reaped what someone else--Adam--had sown. Belief in salvation by proxy, or vicarious atonement, was one escape; for- giveness of sins via the confessional another. An unconfessed sin could reap everlasting torture. The scales of justice did not, and were not expected to, balance. "How could people steeped in these beliefs entertain the idea of many lives? Karma and reincarnation imply individual responsibility; each man his own saviour and redeemer; each enjoys or suffers in exact proportion to thoughts and deeds in this or a former incarn- ation. It was the dead letter rendering of the Old Testament teachings that obviously prevailed during medieval times, not the spirit of the New Testament. 'Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,' said Christ. (Matt 5:48) In this latter view man was not a weak, miserable sinner, but a being of dignity and power. 'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)." > Joe Buehler Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [In order to claim that Paul supports "karma", you have to use it in a very general sense, to mean that a person's fate follows from his decisions. Most people understand the term to refer to inheriting results from a previous life, which Paul certainly does not teach. Even the general claim that you get what you deserve would have to be heavily qualified by his ideas on grace. By the way, the anathema that you quote appears to be from the first gathering in 543, not the 5th ecumenical. I happen to have a copy of the first 11 of the anathemas of the 5th ecumenical, and the first one involves an issue of Trinitarian theology, directed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, not Origen. Origen is mentioned only in the 11th (which as you indicate is often considered to be a later interpolation into the text), and only in a list of heretics of various random sorts. So at most the 5th ecumenical endorsed the judgement of the gathering in 543. I'm not sure whether this agrees or disagrees with what you are saying. As you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion among scholars as to exactly what position, if any, the 5th ecumenical took on Origen. Probably it rubber-stamped the earlier condemnation in a summary fashion. But it does not appear that those condemnations actually made it into the output of the council itself. --clh]