Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?
The passage in question is this* one:
In this mystery we perceive that some things were done which transcend the order of nature, some by the power of nature. Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.
But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.
Again — and this should overwhelm us with astonishment — as soon as the soul of Christ was united to His body, the Divinity became united to both; and thus at the same time His body was formed and animated, and the Divinity united to body and soul.
It's from ARTICLE III : "WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST, BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
Furthermore from First Part of this Article:
Furthermore, this part has comments: 1) "Who was Conceived," 2) "By the Holy Ghost", 3) In The Incarnation Some Things Were Natural, Others Supernatural (from which above is quoted).
Now, Father Jenkins of the CMRI has said, basically, that the things which were just the incomplete views on embryology in this work are not formal teaching. I concur.
But he has said more specifically, that what the Catechism says about Our Lord is what we now believe about all embryos. Here I do not concur.
Let me break this down.
the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed,
So far, Father Jenkins is right, there is a unity of subject between the embryo and the body we walk around in, there is not a succession of unformed matter and then only later a formed body.
Unless the council's Catechism meant to state that the body of Our Lord already had limbs. But if that were the case, there would be some weeks of gestation missing or stationary, and they are at least not missing, since the Christmas Day martyrology states:
novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus
So, if this were the intention, there would need to be some weeks stationary. However, this was not my main point.
and to it was united a rational soul
Here too Father Jenkins is right. The embryo has a soul that is a fully human soul, which is what we have when we have a rational soul.
enjoying the use of reason;
Here only, unless he corrects that later on in the video, after 32 minutes in, he would be wrong. We do not immediately enjoy the use of reason. Our Lord did.
I got some backfiring for stating this and the following statements and clarifications were needed.
Not so as for the recently conceived person to have an immediate use of reason.
Immediate faculty, yes, but a faculty not yet perfected by use. Like the toddler having already the faculty to walk or at least toddle, but not yet having learned to use it.
The use of reason in this life usually requires a brain, which the embryo does not yet have, since the object of reason comes in from the outside, through the senses.
...
I am v e r y certain that a human embryo, first cell that's neither ovum solo nor spermatozoon solo, is an image of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
I am also very sure it is not yet able to draw out a syllogism or formulate a conscious prayer.
Our Lord was. Our Lady was. That is what the quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent said. They had the use of reason. You know, that Catholic joke of an older sister on the birthday of her seven year old brother saying "congratulations, you can now go to Hell" (as in capable of committing mortal sin, being fully responsible for one's acts). That's how mature Our Lord and Our Lady were at the moment of conception, not that either had any propensity for using that maturity for mortal sins or going to the Hell of the damned.
Now, someone would perhaps suspect me of making fun of the Council of Trent. No. Let's check a little further on in the Catechism:
As the body of Christ was formed of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin without the aid of man, as we have already said, and by the sole operation of the Holy Ghost, so also, at the moment of His Conception, His soul was enriched with an overflowing fullness of the Spirit of God, and a superabundance of all graces. For God gave not to Him, as to others adorned with holiness and grace, His Spirit by measure, as St. John testifies but poured into his soul the plenitude of all graces so abundantly that of his fullness we have all received.
And that would include the grace of prophecy. We go to Summa Theologiae, III Part, Question 7. The grace of Christ as an individual man. We go to Article 3. Whether in Christ there was faith?
On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): "Thou knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ.
I answer that, As was said above (II-II:1:4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (III:34:1. Hence there could be no faith in Him.
And we go to Question 34. The perfection of the child conceived and further to Article 1. Whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of His conception? and again just a little quote of the essential point:
I answer that, As stated above (7, 9,10,12), the abundance of grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the Word, according to John 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." For it has been shown above (III:33:3) that in the first instant of conception, Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the Word of God. Consequently, in the first instant of His conception, Christ had the fulness of grace sanctifying His body and His soul.
In other words, Jesus could already actually pray. So could the Blessed Virgin.
Father Jenkins made another comment, about the "blood", referring to this part:
Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.
It's not just a question of inserting the fertilised ovum as the actual origin, since the Catechism considered a body NOT formed to be the initial state. It's instead the growth from then on that the blood from the mother is about, and I commented:
Actually, not an overall bad understanding.
Anything that is a nutrient helping the embryo and fetus to grow comes to it through the blood of the mother, via the placenta and umbilical once these are formed.
Actual scientific progress on this matter has improved details, but not destroyed the overall picture of the science back then.
This obviously refers to the body getting more and more shapes, closer and closer to a baby that is viable, not to the idea of the initial state involving no rational soul as yet. All the necessary nutrients do come from the body of the mother, through the blood, through the placenta. That was a minor point, compared to above, but I think it merits clarification as well.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quinquagesima L. D.
2.III.2025
* Tridentine Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church
The translation and preface are by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. (circa 1923)
https://www.angelfire.com/art/cactussong/TridentineCatechism.htm
