Reincarnation
a.k.a. "transmigration"
a.k.a. “transmigration from body to body”
a.k.a. the "transmigration of souls"

Reincarnation

QUESTION:

Hi Father Michael,

I was reading this passage yesterday and was wondering if Jesus said that there is re-incarnation in this world? It's an eastern concept and I thought was a forbidden belief of the RC Church?

Matthew Chapter 17

10 And his disciples asked him, saying: Why then do the scribes say that Elias must come first?
11 But he answering, said to them: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things.
12 But I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not, But have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind. So also the Son of man shall suffer from them.
13 Then the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.
(Douay-Rheims)

C.N.

ANSWER:

This is a subject that has more recently become a source of greater interest to Catholics and, in some cases, some of the various explanations have been nothing less than confusing because of a lack of precision and necessary details.  Hence, the answer below is designed to remedy this problem.  But to do so, it is necessary to divide the answer into two major sections, which reason should become self-evident as one reads the complete text of what follows.

Section One - Saint Elias and Saint John the Baptist

Part of the answer to this specific question concerning Saint Elias is found at the beginning of the 17th Chapter of Saint Matthew:

1    And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:
2    And he was transfigured before them.  And his face did shine as the sun:  and his garments became white as snow.
3    And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Now if Saint John the Baptist was Saint Elias reincarnated, then how was it that Elias himself was able to appear with Christ at His Transfiguration as witnessed by three of the Apostles, namely Saints Peter, James the Greater, and John?  Why was it not Saint Elias/Saint John the Baptist perhaps appearing as a person with two distinct heads or maybe one head, the right half of which being the head of Saint Elias and the left half of which being the head of Saint John the Baptist?

And whose body would this being have had?  The body of Saint Elias or the body of Saint John the Baptist instead?  Or, would the right half of the body of this being be the body of Saint Elias and the left half of which beingwould have been the body of Saint John the Baptist, or would the left half of the body of this being be the body of Saint John the Baptist and holding his severed head in his left hand (Remember, Herod had Saint John the Baptist beheaded!) so that the head of this being would have only half a head, that of Saint Elias?!  Try to imagine such monstrosities!  It is the acme of absurdity!  Shades of Solomon judging to have the body of the infant cut in half!  This is contrary to the goodness of God!

So, when one reads that:

11   But he answering, said to them:  Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things.

it is necessary to put this into proper perspective.  To say that Saint Elias shall restore all things is a prophecy not about Saint John the Baptist as Saint Elias reincarnated, because the office of Saint John the Baptist was to be the precursor of Christ, notto restore all things.

As a matter of fact, the one and only thing Saint John the Baptist restored was the belief in the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Christ.  The bottom line is that Saint John the Baptist did not restore all things and hence this Scripture does not refer at all to Saint John the Baptist.

But even Saint John the Baptist testifies to the fact that he is not Elias as the Bible proves:

19   And this is the testimony of John [the Baptist], when the [apostate] Judeans sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him:   Who art thou?
20   And he confessed, and did not deny:   and he confessed:   I am not the Christ.
21   And they asked him:   What then?  Art thou Elias?  And he said:   I am not.  (John 1:19-21).

But what does this prophecy of Christ actually mean about Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things?

It is to be fulfilled in this prophecy concerning the two witnesses who are Enoch and Elias.

3    And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
4   These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand before the Lord of the earth.
5    And if any man will hurt them, fire shall come out of their mouths, and shall devour their enemies.  And if any man will hurt them, in this manner must he be slain.
6    These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy:  and they have power over waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues as often as they will.
7    And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast [anti-Christ], that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8    And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified [Jerusalem]. (Apocalypse 11:3-8).

Some may object wondering how would it be possible for Saint Elias to die twice?  Therefore, neither one of the two witnesses can be Saint Elias!

On the contrary, Saint Elias has not yet died!

But how can this be - he must be well over 2,000 years old by now and no human being has ever lived to be over 2,000 years old in this life!

Not so!  The Scripture again bears witness that Saint Elias has not yet died:

2:1. And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias, into heaven, by a whirlwind, that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.
2:2. And Elias said to Eliseus: Stay thou here, because the Lord hath sent me as far as Bethel. And Eliseus said to him: As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee....
2:9. And when they were gone over, Elias said to Eliseus: Ask what thou wilt have me to do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Eliseus said: I beseech thee, that in me may be thy double spirit.
2:10. And he answered: Thou hast asked a hard thing; nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, thou shalt have what thou hast asked: but if thou see me not, thou shalt not have it.
2:11. And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2:12. And Eliseus saw him, and cried: My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the driver thereof.  And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own garments, and rent them in two pieces. (4 Kings 2:1-2; 2:9-12).

But exactly how shall Saint Elias restore all things?

4:5. Behold, I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
4:6. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema [Hebrew - Cherem - total destruction]. (Malachias 4:5-6).

What does this mean?

By converting the apostate Judæans of the Synagogue of Satan to the Catholic Church, Elias, with the help of Henoch, shall reconcile them to their fathers by which is meant to the fathers the Old Testament who are their Partiarchs and Prophets, because the hearts of these apostate Judæans of the Synagogue of Satan have been turned away from their spiritual fathers for almost 2,000 years because of their stubborn refusal to believe in Jesus Christ as the promised Messias of these same Old Testament Prophets.

This is also the testimony of one of the very early Fathers of the Catholic Church who teaches:

"But since the Saviour was the beginning of the resurrection of all men, it was meet that the Lord alone should rise from the dead, by Whom too the judgment is to enter for the whole world, that they who have wrestled worthily may be also crowned worthily by Him, by the illustrious Arbiter, to wit, Who Himself first accomplished the course, and was received into the heavens, and was set down on the right hand of God the Father, and is to be manifested again at the end of the world as Judge.  It is a matter of course that His forerunners must appear first, as He says by Malachias [Malachias 4:5-6]" (Pope Hippolytus I, a.k.a. Hippolytus of Rome [b. in 155 A.D. - d. martyred at Sardinia in 236 A.D.], Extant Works and Fragments, Part II - Dogmatical and Historical, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, ¶ 46).

In case you are wondering who the second of the two witnesses is, the answer, as given above, is Henoch, who, like Saint Elias, has not yet died!  How so?

Again, the Bible testifies to this Truth:

44:16. Henoch pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations. (Ecclesiasticus 44:16).

11:5    By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had translated him:  for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God. (Hebrews 11:5).

Ecclesiasticus 44:16 tells us that Henoch was translated into Paradise.  Some exegetics consider this Paradise to mean the Garden of Paradise from which Adam and Eve were driven after committing Original Sin.  Some also consider that Elias likes currently lives with Henoch in the Garden of Paradise awaiting their destiny to convert the apostate Judæans of the Synagogue of Satan to the Catholic Church during the bloody reign of terror of anti-Christ.

"And let the Bishop say:  'O Thou who art by nature immortal, and hast no end of Thy being, from whom every creature, whether immortal or mortal, is derived; who didst make man a rational creature, the citizen of this world, in his constitution mortal, and didst add the promise of a resurrection; Who didst not suffer Enoch and Elias to taste of death'" (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VIII, Concerning Gifts, and Ordinations, and the Ecclesiastical Canons, Section IV Certain Prayers and Laws, The Bidding Prayer for Those Departed, ¶ XLI [41]).

As to the reasonableness of these two Saints having already lived in their human flesh for well over 2,000 years, consider what the Doctor of Grace writes on this subject:

"Nor was there any reason to fear that if he had happened to live on here longer in his natural body, he would have been oppressed with old age, and have gradually, by increasing age, arrived at death. For if God granted to the clothes and the shoes of the Israelites that your garments are not worn out, neither are the shoes of your feet consumed with age [Deuteronomy 29:5] during so many years, what wonder if for obedience it had been by the power of the same [God] allowed to man, that although he had a natural and mortal body, he should have in it a certain condition, in which he might grow full of years without decrepitude, and, whenever God pleased, pass from mortality to immortality without the medium of death? For even as this very flesh of ours, which we now possess, is not therefore invulnerable, because it is not necessary that it should be wounded; so also was his not therefore immortal, because there was no necessity for its dying."

"Such a condition, whilst still in their natural and mortal body, I suppose, was granted even to those who were translated hence without death [And all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him (Genesis 5:23-24). And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven (4 Kings 2:11)].  For Enoch and Elijah were not reduced to the decrepitude of old age by their long life."

"But yet I do not believe that they were then changed into that spiritual kind of body, such as is promised in the resurrection, and which the Lord was the first to receive; only they probably do not need those aliments, which by their use minister refreshment to the body; but ever since their translation they so live, as to enjoy such a sufficiency as was provided during the forty days in which Elias lived on the cruse of water and the cake, without substantial food. (And he cast himself down, and slept in the shadow of the juniper tree: and behold an angel of the Lord touched him, and said to him: Arise and eat. He looked, and behold there was at his head a hearth cake, and a vessel of water: and he ate and drank, and he fell asleep again. And the angel of the Lord came again the second time, and touched him, and said to him: Arise, eat: for thou hast yet a great way to go. And he arose, and ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights, unto the mount of God, Horeb [3 Kings 19:5-8])."

"Or else, if there be any need of such sustenance, they are, it may be, sustained in [the Garden of] Paradise in some such way as Adam was, before he brought on himself expulsion therefrom by sinning. And he, as I suppose, was supplied with sustenance against decay from the fruit of the various trees, and from the tree of life with security against old age" (Bishop Saint Augustine, a.k.a. Aurelius Augustinus [b. Tagaste, Africa, Saturday, November 13, 354 A.D. - d. Hippo Regia, Africa, Wednesday, August 28, 430 A.D.], Bishop of Hippo Regia, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, the Doctor of Grace, a protégé of Patriarch Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants in Three Books, Addressed to Marcellinus, a.d. 412 A.D., Book I, Chapter 3 - It is One Thing to Be Mortal, Another Thing to Be Subject to Death).

Section Two - Reincarnation

Introduction

New Agers claim that in the early days of the Catholic Church, Catholics believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine records being taught: “The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicæa [sic]” (Out on a Limb, pp. 234 - 235).

However, there never was a Council of Nicæa “sometime around 553 A.D.”

Historically, there were two Œcumenical Councils of Nicæa.  The First Œcumenical Council (Council of Nicæa I [Saturday, June 20, 325 A.D. - Tuesday, August 25, 325 A.D.]), was convoked and later formally opened on Saturday, June 20, 325 A.D. by  the Roman Emperor Constantine I, a.k.a. Constantine the Great, a.k.a. C. Flavius Valerius Constantinus [b. at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia sometime between 274 A.D. - 288 A.D. - d. after being Baptized by the heretical Arian Bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Nicomedia at the Villa Aquilo in May, 337 A.D.]; Roman Emperor [proclaimed Caesar by his troops on Wednesday, July 25, 306 A.D. -  May, 337 A.D.].

The Seventh Œcumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicæa [Thursday, September 24, 787 A.D. - Friday, October 23, 787 A.D.] was held in  787 A.D.  Both of these Œcumenical Councils took place in the city of Nicæa, not in Constantinople, from whence is derived their name.  But neither Nicæa I nor Nicæa II considered the subject of reincarnation. But what did take place in 553 A.D. was the Second Œcumenical Council of Constantinople. Yet its records testify that it also did not deal with reincarnation, just as all of the other early Œcumenical Council likewise did not deal with reincarnation.

Part One - The Heresy of Reincarnation Refuted by the Bible of the Catholic Church

“It is appointed unto men once to die [contrary to the heresy of reincarnation] and after this the [particular] Judgment” (Hebrews 9:27; emphasis added).

Part Two - The Heresy of Reincarnation Refuted by the Fathers of the Catholic Church

The closest the Second Œcumenical Council of Constantinople of 553 A.D. came to the subject of reincarnation is to be found in one sentence, used to condemn Origen, an early Church writer, who believed souls exist in Heaven before coming to earth to be born.

New Agers confuse this belief with reincarnation and claim Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Below, you will find a number of quotations from him in order to prove that New Agers are in error concerning what Origen taught.  The reality is that Origen is continually misused by some New Agers.

In addition, you will also find quotations from other Fathers of the Catholic Church.  All of these quotations are from works originally written before 553 A.D. when, according to some New Agers, the doctrine was supposedly “taken out of the Bible” or “removed from the Bible”.

The subject of “reincarnation” is not new!  Actually, what it really is happens to be a brand new name from something very, very old, because, before it was called “reincarnation”,it was originally called “transmigration”, which actually means “transmigration from body to body”, or the "transmigration of souls", and was an error taught by various pagan Greeks, e.g. two whose names are probably familiar with most Westerners?

1)  Pythagoras, a.k.a. Pythagoras of Samos, a.k.a. Pythagoras the Samian [b.  between 580 B.C. and 572 B.C. - d. between 500 B.C. and 490 BC], who was an Ionian Greek mathematician and founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanismand its followers are called Pythagoreans.

2)  Plato, a.k.a. Aristocles [b. at Athens, Greece in May or December in 428 B.C. or 427 B.C. - d. c. 347 B.C.] who taught that this life, this world, is all but a “dream”! (Some people might call this false teaching of his a “nightmare”!)

Some of Plato’s errors were at least partially corrected by one of his own students, another Greek, Aristotle [b. at Stageira, on the Greek Chalcidice peninsula in 384 B.C. - d. at Euboea, the second largest of the Greek Aegean Islands and the second largest Greek island overall in area and population, after Crete, on March 7, 322 B.C.].

But first, who or what are the Fathers of the Catholic Church?

“FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, saintly writers of the first centuries of the Christian era, whom the Catholic Church acknowledges as witnesses of her faith.  To be numbered among the Fathers of the Church, four qualities are required of a writer.  First, he must have lived when the Church was in her youth; hence Saint Gregory the Great (d. 604) is generally regarded as the last Father in the West, Father Saint John Damascene (d. 754), in the East.  Secondly, he must have led a saintly life.  Thirdly, his writings must not only be free from heresies, but also excel in the explanation and defense of Catholic doctrine.  Lastly, his writings must bear the seal of the Church’s approval.  Though the majority of the Fathers were Bishops, yet this is not true of all of them.  Saint Jerome was a simple Priest to the end of his days.  Saint Ephraem a Deacon, Saint Justin a Layman.  All Fathers have not been proclaimed Doctors of the Church.  In matters of faith and morals, the consent of the Fathers has always been held in high esteem by the Church.  WHAT THEY UNANIMOUSLY TEACH TO BE OF FAITH, IS OF FAITH; WHAT THEY UNANIMOUSLY REJECT AS HERETICAL, IS HERETICAL.  Even the logical conclusions which they unanimously draw from the Articles of Faith, furnish us with a certain theological argument.  Their authority is due not only to the fact that they were Saints or Bishops or eminent Scholars and lived at a time when Christ’s revelation was still fresh in the minds of men, but primarily to the approbation of the Church.  What Christ said of the Apostles, “He that heareth you, heareth Me”, the Church says in a manner of the Fathers. They are the mouthpiece of the infallible teaching body of the Church, and the Church acknowledges them as witnesses of her own faith.  Hence, when anathematizing new heresies or defining new dogmas, the Councils appeal to the consent of the Fathers.  The Council of Ephesus (431) declared in its first session that it would define nothing save what had been held unanimously by the ancient and holy Fathers.  This approbation of the Church gives added authority even to the Fathers, considered singly, though in varying degrees.  A general approbation given to a saintly writer of the first centuries implies that his doctrine in general is orthodox and worthy of recommendation.  Sometimes, however, a certain Father’s doctrines receives a special approbation as being exceptionally solid; such is Saint Augustine’s fundamental doctrine on grace.  Lastly, the highest degree of ecclesiastical approbation is reached when the Church takes the very doctrine of a Father and embodies it in her own official pronouncements, as in the case of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, whose twelve anathematisms against Nestorius were adopted by the Council of Ephesus (431)”  (Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., John J. Wynne, S.J., S.T.D., et alii, THE NEW CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, 1929, Imprimatur, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Tuesday, October 1, 1929, Fathers of the Church, p. 361b-361c; emphasis added).

Saint Irenæus of Lyons

“We may undermine (the Hellenists’ [i.e. pagan Greeks’]) doctrine as to transmigration from body to body [i.e. reincarnation] by this fact--that souls remember nothing whatever of the events which took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, rough the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain....With reference to these objections, Plato...attempted no kind of proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches their entrance, before they effect an entrance into the bodies. It escaped him that he fell into another, greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion, after it has been drunk, can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain the knowledge of this fact....?” (Bishop Saint Irenæus [b. Proconsular Asia c. 130 A.D. - d. Lyons, France either on Monday, June 28, or Monday, August 23, in about 202 A.D.], Bishop of Lyons, Father of the Catholic Church.  He was a Disciple of Bishop Saint Polycarp [c. 69 A.D. - d. martyred on Saturday, February 23, 166 A.D.].  Saint Polycarp, in turn, was a Disciple of Saint John the Apostle, Evangelist and author of the Apocalypse [b.  ?  A.D. - d. Ephesus, c. 101 A.D.], who made him the Bishop of Smyrna.  Saint Polycarp is an Apostolic Father of the Catholic Church.  Bishop Saint Irenæus, Against the Heresies,  {written 180 A.D. - 199 A.D.}, Book II, chapter 33, ¶ 1-2).

Tertullian

“Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain an acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May any one have the persuasion that he should abstain, lest, by chance, in his beef he eats some ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the very actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius...they will not...grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very matter they have left...?” (Tertullian, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus [b. Carthage, 155 A.D. - d. 225 A.D.] Apology 48 [197 A.D.]).

Origen

“[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, “What then?  Art thou Elias?” [John 1:21] and he said, “I am not.”’ No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come.” [Matthew 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elias?’–‘I am not’?...one might say that John did not know that he was Elias. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives....However, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elias, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elias that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the Spirit and power of Elias” (Origen of Alexandria [b. Alexandria, Egypt in 185 A.D. - d. Tyre, Phenicia in 254 A.D.], Commentary on John 6:7 [229 A.D.]).

Origen

“As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property (slaves), as ‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.’ [1 Corinthians  14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elias hath rested upon Eliseus’ [4 Kings 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elias’ [Luke 1:17] turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elias that is to come’ [Matthew 11:14]”. (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John 6:7 [229 A.D.]).

Origen

“If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elias? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts in the...doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless” (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John 6:7 [229 A.D.]).

Origen

“Some might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the form John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the Spirit and the power of Elias, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘he is Elias that is to come’ [Matthew 11:14]...so Herod thought that the powers in John worked in his case works of baptism and teaching--for John did not do one miracle [John indeed did no sign. (John 10:41)]--but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents” (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [248 A.D.]).

Origen

“Now the Canaanitish woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me’ [Matthew 15:25] but He answered and said, ‘It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs’ [Matthew 15:26]... Others, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we...do not find this at all in the Divine Scripture” (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 11:16 [248 A.D.]).

Origen

“In this place [when Jesus said Elias was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elias the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration [of souls],which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures” (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 13:1 [248 A.D.]).

Origen

“But if...the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration [of souls], laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation, which, even if they wish, they will not be able to do” (Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 13:1 [248 A.D.]).

Arnobius

“Man’s real death [is] when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall cast them...Wherefore, there is no reason that [one] should mislead us, should hold our vain hopes to us, which some men say is unheard of till now, and carried away by an extravagant opinion of themselves, that souls are immortal, next in point of rank to the God and ruler of the world, descended from that Parent and Sire....[And] while we are moving swiftly down toward our mortal bodies, causes pursue us from the world’s circles, through the working of which we become bad--aye, most wicked... [and] that the souls of wicked men, on leaving their human bodies, pass into cattle and other creatures” (Arnobius [b. 3rd Century A.D. - d. 4th Century A.D.], [Adversus Nationes] Against the Pagans 2:14-15 [305 A.D.]).

Lactantius

“What of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle or of birds or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan war, and that when he had been slain he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man!--to whom alone so great a memory was given! Or rather unhappy, who when changed into a sheep was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And I would to Heaven that he alone had been thus senseless!” (Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius [b. Africa 4th Century A.D. - d. ?  4th Century A.D.], a pupil of Arnobius, known as the “Christian Cicero”, Epitome of the Divine Institutes, 36 [317 A.D.]).

Saint Gregory of Nyssa

“”If one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterward assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature--and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth, for such doctrines as this--of saying that one should pass through many changes--are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws or the stupidity of fishes or the insensibility of trees” (Saint Gregory of Nyssa [b. Sebaste, Asia Minor c. 331 A.D. - d.  Nyssa? in 394 A.D.], Bishop of Nyssa, Father of the Catholic Church, The Making of Man 28:3 [379 A.D.]).

Saint Ambrose of Milan

“It is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen]...say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies....But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Gospel, it is not lawful to doubt” (Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, Belief in the Resurrection, 65-66 [380 A.D.]).

Saint Ambrose of Milan

“But is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures?...For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel, however, would it be that the soul which rules man should take on itself the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?” (Saint Ambrose, Belief in the Resurrection 127 [380 A.D.]).

Saint John Chrysostom

“As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing excessively shameful that they [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with some other the like indecencies...At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of yet less esteem than these” (Saint John Chrysostom [b. Antioch, c. 347 A.D. - d. at Commana in Pontus on Friday, September 14, 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople [Thursday, February 26, 398 A.D. - Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D.], exiled from his See the 2nd time on Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D., Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, Homilies on John 2:3, 6[391 A.D.])

Saint Augustine

"And thus, too, they seek to give promise to the human soul of alternations of true misery and false happiness, in accordance with Plato's theory; or, in accordance with Porphyry's, that, after many transmigrations into different bodies, it ends its miseries, and never more returns to them, not, however, by obtaining an immortal body, but by escaping from every kind of body" (Bishop Saint Augustine, a.k.a. Aurelius Augustinus [b. Tagaste, Africa, Saturday, November 13, 354 A.D. - d. Hippo Regia, Africa, Wednesday, August 28, 430 A.D.], Bishop of Hippo Regia, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, the Doctor of Grace, a protégé of Patriarch Saint Ambrose [b. in Gaul, possibly at Trier, Arles, or Lyons in 340 A.D. - d. at Milan, Italy on Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.] Patriarch of Milan [374 A.D. - Friday, April 4, 397 A.D.], The City of God, Book XXII [22], Chapter 12 - Against the Calumnies with Which Unbelievers Throw Ridicule Upon the Christian Faith in the Resurrection of the Flesh.).

Theological Considerations by the Angelic Doctor

"I answer that, Some distinguish two kinds of acts in the sensitive powers: external acts which the soul exercises through the body. and these do not remain in the separated soul; and internal acts which the soul performs by itself; and these will be in the separated soul. This statement would seem to have originated from the opinion of Plato, who held that the soul is united to the body, as a perfect substance nowise dependant on the body, and merely as a mover is united to the thing moved. This is an evident consequence of transmigration which he held. And since according to him nothing is in motion except what is moved, and lest he should go on indefinitely, he said that the first mover moves itself, and he maintained that the soul is the cause of its own movement. Accordingly there would be a twofold movement of the soul, one by which it moves itself, and another whereby the body is moved by the soul: so that this act "to see" is first of all in the soul itself as moving itself, and secondly in the bodily organ in so far as the soul moves the body. This opinion is refuted by the Philosopher [Aristotle, the pupil of Plato] (De Anima [On the Soul] i, 3) who proves that the soul does not move itself, and that it is nowise moved in respect of such operations as seeing, feeling, and the like, but that such operations are movements of the composite only. We must therefore conclude that the acts of the sensitive powers nowise remain in the separated soul, except perhaps as in their remote origin" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Supplement [probably compiled by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno, a companion and friend of the Angelic Doctor, and was gathered from Saint Thomas' Commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard], Question 70, Article 2).