Soul Gender?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:14 PM']Part of the problem here is that some people are confusing the operations of the suppositum (person) with the human soul itself. 

[i]The human soul is a substantial form, and this means that it is completely simple[/i]; consequently, the operations of the person (sensitive, appetitive, generative, etc.) are distinct from the soul, because if they were not they would always be in act.  In other words, the powers of the composite being (man) must be distinct from the soul which is its substantial form.

Ironically enough, both East and West hold this to be the case with human soul, because while the human soul is the subject of these vital operations, the operations are only accidental perfections, that is, they are accidental powers (potencies) which are distinct from the soul, and which are related properly only to the hylomorphic being (i.e., the person).

Masculinity and femininity are proper only to the composite being (i.e., the human person).
[right][snapback]627030[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

......but [i]why[/i][i] must[/i] the soul be completely simple......i know i asked why a million times before and Jeff thought it wise to give me some Logic lessons, but since taking Aristotilean and Thomistic Logic I think I was just never capable of understanding anything in terms of a syllogism...

[i]Masculinity and femininity are proper only to the composite being (i.e., the human person).[/i]

....[i]whhhhhhhhhyy???[/i] i will believe you if you tell me why this must be........please, please, please no logic

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 03:46 PM']Your "person" ceases to exist at the moment of death. If need be, your soul, being the form of the body, is purified in purgatory. At the Parousia your perfected soul will be united with your glorified body - thus final [i]theosis[/i].

I am not sure what the difficulty is?
[right][snapback]627727[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The difficulty is this:
where does that "data" go when you die? Does it disappear? If yes, then I must vehemently disagree.

[Apotheoun]

Is the soul a complete man without the body? Is the body a complete man without the soul?

A man who says "yes" to the first question is a Platonist and not a Catholic. A man who says "yes" to the second question is a materialist and not a Catholic.

As St. Irenaeus said:

[quote]Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, [i]but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God[/i]. For this reason does the apostle declare, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect," terming those persons "perfect" who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms "spiritual," they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, [i]and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual[/i].

[i]For if any one take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God[/i]. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God's] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, [i]and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God[/i]. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect.

Thus also, [i]if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man[/i].

For that flesh which has been moulded is not a perfect man in itself, [i]but the body of a man, and part of a man[/i]. Neither is the soul itself, [i]considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man[/i]. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; [i]but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man[/i]. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, "Now the God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos); and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Now what was his object in praying that these three -- that is, soul, body, and spirit -- might be preserved to the coming of the Lord, [i]unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation[/i]? For this cause also he declares that those are "the perfect" who present unto the Lord the three [component parts] without offence.

Those, then, are the perfect who have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, [i]and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless[/i], holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to their neighbours.

Whence also he says, that this handiwork is "the temple of God," thus declaring: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are."

Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however," it is said, "of the temple of His body." And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?" He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares "our body," that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be "the members of Christ;" but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, "If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy."

How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power." [St. Irenaeus, [u]Adversus Haereses[/u], Book V, Chap. 6, Nos. 1-2][/quote]

Man is not simply his soul; insteadl, he is a single being composed of both body and soul, and so one without the other is incomplete.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 29 2005, 04:19 PM']......but [i]why[/i][i] must[/i] the soul be completely simple......i know i asked why a million times before and Jeff thought it wise to give me some Logic lessons, but since taking Aristotilean and Thomistic Logic I think I was just never capable of understanding anything in terms of a syllogism...

[i]Masculinity and femininity are proper only to the composite being (i.e., the human person).[/i]

  ....[i]whhhhhhhhhyy???[/i]  i will believe you if you tell me why this must be........please, please, please no logic
[right][snapback]627755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To answer your first question:

[i]Why must the soul be completely simple?[/i]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows: [quote]The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.[/quote]

This ultimate principle can be either composite (complex) or simple. If the soul is composite, then it could be broken down into its composites, which would be more simple than the soul. If this is the case, then these simple composites would be "the ultimate internal principle(s) by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

However, this is precisely the definition of the soul. Ergo, whatever the soul is, it must necessarily be simple. We know this [i]a priori[/i]


To answer your second question:

[i]Why are masculinity and feminimity proper only to the human being (i.e. the human person)?[/i]

There are three options:

1.) Sex is proper to the body
2.) Sex is proper to the soul
3.) Sex is proper to the human person (ie the polymorphic being who is a soul/body composite).

1.) That sex is not proper to the body: I

f it were proper to the body, we would be able to "locate" what aspect of the body contains the sex of the individual. However, this is not the case. As we have previously discussed, sex is not located in the genital organs, nor in bone structure, nor in percentage body fat, etc, for all of these things can change without altering the sex of the person. Moreover, it has been argued by some that sex resides in the DNA. If sex =did reside in DNA, then there would only be two possible chomosonal combinations, one to correspond to each sex, namely, XX and XY. However, this is not the case, as it is well know that some people are born with Klinefelter Syndrome, or an XXY chomosomal composition. Moreover, others have been known to have an XXXY or an XXYY makeup. Thus, sex does not reside in the DNA, and therefore not in the body.

2.) That sex is not proper to the soul:

If it were proper to the soul, then the soul would be a composite. It is clear that the soul is not reducible to simply sex. Therefore, if sex were proper to the soul, then the soul would contain both sex and something else (namely, the animating principle). Thus, the soul would be a composite of sex and animating principle. But the soul is not composite. Consequently, sex is not proper to the soul.

3.) If sex is not proper to either the soul or the body, as shown above, then sex must be proper to the human person, or the composite of soul and body.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thanks Todd. Irenaeus rocks my world.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:00 AM']To answer your first question:

[i]Why must the soul be completely simple?[/i]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows:
[quote]The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.[/quote]

This ultimate principle can be either composite (complex) or simple. If the soul is composite, then it could be broken down into its composites, which would be more simple than the soul. If this is the case, then these simple composites would be "the ultimate internal principle(s) by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."[/quote]

I'm not sure if I can agree with that. My first reaction is that the [b]will[/b] is the "ultimate internal principal" and that the soul contains the will, memories, and other immaterial portions of my identity.

[quote]However, this is precisely the definition of the soul. Ergo, whatever the soul is, it must necessarily be simple. We know this [i]a priori[/i]
To answer your second question:

[i]Why are masculinity and feminimity proper only to the human being (i.e. the human person)?[/i]

There are three options:

1.) Sex is proper to the body
2.) Sex is proper to the soul
3.) Sex is proper to the human person (ie the polymorphic being who is a soul/body composite).

1.) That sex is not proper to the body: I

f it were proper to the body, we would be able to "locate" what aspect of the body contains the sex of the individual. However, this is not the case. As we have previously discussed, sex is not located in the genital organs, nor in bone structure, nor in percentage body fat, etc, for all of these things can change without altering the sex of the person. Moreover, it has been argued by some that sex resides in the DNA. If sex =did reside in DNA, then there would only be two possible chomosonal combinations, one to correspond to each sex, namely, XX and XY. However, this is not the case, as it is well know that some people are born with Klinefelter Syndrome, or an XXY chomosomal composition. Moreover, others have been known to have an XXXY or an XXYY makeup. Thus, sex does not reside in the DNA, and therefore not in the body.[/quote]

This came up in a live conversation yesterday evening. Additionally there is hormonal screwy-ness that can phunk up sexual identity in the body. However, we say that the body is the image of the person. Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality. Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.

[quote]2.) That sex is not proper to the soul:

If it were proper to the soul, then the soul would be a composite. It is clear that the soul is not reducible to simply sex. Therefore, if sex were proper to the soul, then the soul would contain both sex and something else (namely, the animating principle). Thus, the soul would be a composite of sex and animating principle. But the soul is not composite. Consequently, sex is not proper to the soul.[/quote]

see above.

[quote]3.) If sex is not proper to either the soul or the body, as shown above, then sex must be proper to the human person, or the composite of soul and body.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]628117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are taking sex to be a simple thing. I'm taking sex to be a composite thing. I think that's where the real difference is. We're probably looking at the same thing from opposite sides.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 08:48 AM'][. . .]

Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality.  Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.
[right][snapback]628282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The glorified body is perfect, and as such it will have no defects. Defects are a result of the fall, and the redemption is the reversal of the fall and all the consequences that flow from it.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:55 AM']The glorified body is perfect, and as such it will have no defects.  Defects are a result of the fall, and the redemption is the reversal of the fall and all the consequences that flow from it.
[right][snapback]628288[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I'm not sure if I can agree with that. My first reaction is that the will is the "ultimate internal principal" and that the soul contains the will, memories, and other immaterial portions of my identity. [/quote]

That is the definition of the soul as it is understood by Aquinas, the Scholastics, and most philosophers in the Western Tradition. If you think them wrong, there is little that I will be able to do to persuade you.

I do not believe, nor do they, that thinking and feeling are derivative of willing. If these faculties do not have willing as their internal principle, then willing is not the ultimate internal principle. The true ultimate internal principle is what they, and I, would call the soul.

[quote]we say that the body is the image of the person. Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality. Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.[/quote]

This is like making the argument that because a man is made in the image of God, and the man is in a state of sin, then God must be in a state of sin.

Moreover, your first premise equivocates. When we say that "the body is the image of the person" we mean that "the visible part of the person is what we call the body." However, your later arguments interpret the saying as meaning "whatever pertains to the person is visible in the body."

This is clearly not the case, however, as the soul pertains to the person but is not itself visible in the body.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]You are taking sex to be a simple thing. I'm taking sex to be a composite thing. I think that's where the real difference is.[/quote]

Indeed, to assert that sex is a composite thing is to assert that "some of" what makes sex is in the body and that "some of" what makes sex is in the soul. This is simply not the case. The soul is a simple substance and, as such, cannot contain within itself composites, such as sex is said to be given your argumentation.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:00 AM']To answer your first question:

[i]Why must the soul be completely simple?[/i]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows:

This ultimate principle can be either composite (complex) or simple. If the soul is composite, then it could be broken down into its composites, which would be more simple than the soul. If this is the case, then these simple composites would be "the ultimate internal principle(s) by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

However, this is precisely the definition of the soul. Ergo, whatever the soul is, it must necessarily be simple. We know this [i]a priori[/i]
To answer your second question:

[i]Why are masculinity and feminimity proper only to the human being (i.e. the human person)?[/i]

There are three options:

1.) Sex is proper to the body
2.) Sex is proper to the soul
3.) Sex is proper to the human person (ie the polymorphic being who is a soul/body composite).

1.) That sex is not proper to the body: I

f it were proper to the body, we would be able to "locate" what aspect of the body contains the sex of the individual. However, this is not the case. As we have previously discussed, sex is not located in the genital organs, nor in bone structure, nor in percentage body fat, etc, for all of these things can change without altering the sex of the person. Moreover, it has been argued by some that sex resides in the DNA. If sex =did reside in DNA, then there would only be two possible chomosonal combinations, one to correspond to each sex, namely, XX and XY. However, this is not the case, as it is well know that some people are born with Klinefelter Syndrome, or an XXY chomosomal composition. Moreover, others have been known to have an XXXY or an XXYY makeup. Thus, sex does not reside in the DNA, and therefore not in the body.

2.) That sex is not proper to the soul:

If it were proper to the soul, then the soul would be a composite. It is clear that the soul is not reducible to simply sex. Therefore, if sex were proper to the soul, then the soul would contain both sex and something else (namely, the animating principle). Thus, the soul would be a composite of sex and animating principle. But the soul is not composite. Consequently, sex is not proper to the soul.

3.) If sex is not proper to either the soul or the body, as shown above, then sex must be proper to the human person, or the composite of soul and body.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]628117[/snapback][/right]

[/quote]

[i]Kopascetic, grazie[/i]

Edited June 30, 2005 by Semperviva

[Guest JeffCR07]

prego

[scardella]

I sort of skipped over the Irenaeus quote and just looked at your conclusion before...

According to that Irenaus quote, what is the difference between the soul and the spirit? That is different than we've been saying the general structure of man's nature is...

What we've been saying is:
union of (soul + body) yields a complete human person.

Apparently what he's saying is:
union of (soul + body + spirit) yields a complete human person.

If this human spirit is an immaterial reality that is part of the human person, and if it contains the other immaterial stuff that makes up me, (memories, sense of humor, etc.), then I'm willing to accept that the soul = will and is simple.

However, 2 things:
1. I'm not convinced that this immaterial spirit exists alongside the soul.
2. Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood. The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit. If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists. Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body. Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul. Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.

Edited June 30, 2005 by scardella

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood. The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit. If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists. Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body. Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul. Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.[/quote]

Your ordinary language analysis is incorrect in its methodology, as you are trying to force common usage into metaphysical reality rather than understand that common usage in the light of understood metaphysical truth.

In ordinary language we do indeed use the phrases "this is a man's body" and "this is a male body" as interchangable. However, this is not because the two are metaphysically equivalent, but rather, it is because common language does not call for a philosophically accurate distinction.

In fact, we are wrong to say "this is a male body" if by this phrase we mean that some composite part of the sex "male" exists in the body in and of itself.

We are free to say "this is a male body" if by this phrase we mean that "this is a body belonging to a male person."

This is an important distinction because in the first meaning the body is deriving some of its masculinity from itself, while in the second it is deriving its masculinity wholly from the person.

The question here is this: The body is called male by virtue of....

Your claim is, essentially, that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it contains some aspect of masculinity within itself, and the part that is "missing" is provided by the soul.

My claim is that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it belongs to a male person.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 03:19 PM']Your claim is, essentially, that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it contains some aspect of masculinity within itself, and the part that is "missing" is provided by the soul.

My claim is that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it belongs to a male person.
[right][snapback]628596[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Is there a problem with that?
[i]Pun unintentional, but appreciated[/i]

Edited July 1, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:54 AM'][. . .]
According to that Irenaus quote, what is the difference between the soul and the spirit?  That is different than we've been saying the general structure of man's nature is...

What we've been saying is:
union of (soul + body) yields a complete human person.

Apparently what he's saying is:
union of (soul + body + spirit) yields a complete human person.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]628413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is important to understand the teaching of the early Fathers on the tripartite existence of man, especially as it is exemplified in the doctrine of St. Irenaeus. For St. Irenaeus "natural" man is composed of body and soul, and this is man as he exists after the fall, devoid of God's vivifying energy. In other words, "natural" man is man after the original sin, and not as he was in the very beginning in the Garden. In the very beginning man was created in the image of God, and moreover, he possessed the Spirit of God and was in the divine likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]). But when Adam fell into sin the divine Spirit was withdrawn from man, and consequently his likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God was deformed and he was no longer in communion with God.

Now in the fullness of time the eternal Logos became incarnate, and in becoming man He restored the divine Spirit that had been lost in the fall, and man once again received the likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God, which he had in the beginning.

Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process. The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit.

[Semperviva]

[i]Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process. The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit. [/i]

...wow, that stuff rocks...makes me wanna go Eastern, LOL,[color=orange][i] "take me back to Constantinople..."[/i][/color] haha...Iranaeus is John's disciple, correctamente ? or no...

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:27 AM']It is important to understand the teaching of the early Fathers on the tripartite existence of man, especially as it is exemplified in the doctrine of St. Irenaeus.  For St. Irenaeus "natural" man is composed of body and soul, and this is man as he exists after the fall, devoid of God's vivifying energy.  In other words, "natural" man is man after the original sin, and not as he was in the very beginning in the Garden.  In the very beginning man was created in the image of God, and moreover, he possessed the Spirit of God and was in the divine likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]). But when Adam fell into sin the divine Spirit was withdrawn from man, and consequently his likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God was deformed and he was no longer in communion with God.

Now in the fullness of time the eternal Logos became incarnate, and in becoming man He restored the divine Spirit that had been lost in the fall, and man once again received the likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God, which he had in the beginning. 

Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process.  The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit.
[right][snapback]629331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, so he's talking about the Holy Spirit. Rock on! It still leaves us with disagreement in the main course of things, though.

Edited July 1, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:54 AM'][. . .]
However, 2 things: 
1. I'm not convinced that this immaterial spirit exists alongside the soul.
2. Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood.  The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit.  If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists.  Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body.  Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul.  Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.
[right][snapback]628413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
1. The Spirit in the teaching of the early Fathers is the indwelling Holy Spirit.
2. The soul is the substantial form of the human person and as such it is simple. Moreover, in the Western theological tradition if you identify the soul with the operations of the composite being (man), you are basically saying that man is God, and not by grace but by nature. In the Western tradition only God's essence and operations are identical.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:41 AM']1.  The Spirit in the teaching of the early Fathers is the indwelling Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

I misunderstood Irenaeus. I thought he was talking about some sort of natural human spirit apart from the soul. See my earlier post.

[quote]2.  The soul is the substantial form of the human person and as such it is simple.  Moreover, in the Western theological tradition if you identify the soul with the operations of the composite being (man), you are basically saying that man is God, and not by grace but by nature.  In the Western tradition only God's essence and operations are identical.
[right][snapback]629344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't understand your argument. You're saying that something I've said implies that man would somehow be God? Does this have anything to do w/ what I said about the soul containing memories, etc.?