E
edwest2
Guest
There is no scientific or scriptural basis for the last claim. Science cannot study the soul.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
That sums it up. We are here because of an individual Adam and Eve. Original Sin exists in all of us because of them. That is why Jesus Christ was born into the world. Science cannot study God or the supernatural or identify the soul.
Peace,
Ed
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
That sums it up. We are here because of an individual Adam and Eve. Original Sin exists in all of us because of them. That is why Jesus Christ was born into the world. Science cannot study God or the supernatural or identify the soul.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
There is scientific evidence of a succession of more and more human-like apes evolving, giving good evidence of the evolution of the physical human body.
As for scriptural, it is a matter of interpretation. God made Adam from clay. However, earlier in Genesis we are told that the earth “brought forth” the non-human animals. Hence we can interpret the “clay” from which God made Adam as the same earth which brought forth the other animals. In other words, Adam was formed from a pre-existing animal. The “breath” of God into the clay is the infusion of a soul into a pre-existing animal.
Agreed.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Scientists may not be able to put the spiritual soul per se under the microscope
– BUT –
the scientists who are human can absolutely observe the effects of the spiritual soul.
First principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
– BUT –
the scientists who are human can absolutely observe the effects of the spiritual soul.
First principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Hi johnnyt3000,
It has to do with mitochondrial DNA. Look up “Eve theory”.
I’m not a anthropology expert myself, but I have talked to a few, and they all agree that its extremely likely that the human race all descended from a single set of parents.
This really isn’t at odds with evolution. I have an atheist friend who is a passionate believer in evolution. Yet, he is aware of the Eve theory and considers it very probable.
I’m not an expert on the subject, and probably couldn’t defend it to the level of detail that you may want, so I encourage you to research the subject matter and see what you can find out.
All the best!
G
grannymh
Guest
Please review the “Common Misconceptions” about the real woman in the 1987 Rebecca Cann et al Research (footnote 3) which the media affectionately named “Eve”. See link below.
These common misconceptions (in the link below) explain why the “Eve” evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of Catholic doctrines of human origin.
Link to the “Eve” theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
S
smichhertz
Guest
Thanks for this information. I’ll look into it when I get a chance.
G
grannymh
Guest
Some of the “common misconceptions” may need further explanation in terms of Catholic teachings. I will do my best to find the answers for you.
By the way, I checked your public profile. Regarding your last quote:
“If we wish to keep peace with our neighbor, we should never remind anyone of his natural defects.” - St. Philip Neri
I am still
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.” Charles Darwin
S
ServantPD
Guest
It will certainly not be more absurd than being a naturalist and an evolutionist… Darwin thought that a monkey-derived brain couldn’t reach any far-reaching conclusions regarding the existence of God, without going through certain innaccuracy. But he apparently believed that he could such thing about something as far-reaching as the origin of all species.
God made man in His own image. he didn’t make man from organisms and monkeys etc.
Evolution is completely at odds with the Catholic faith.
R
rossum
Guest
Apes have two eyes, four limbs and a brain. Humans have two eyes, four limbs and a brain. There is no physical part of a human being that is not also found in apes.
If the resemblance ot God is physical, then apes also have that resemblance. If the resemblance to God is spiritual, then it has nothing to do with evolution, which only deals with the physical.
A number of recent Popes disagree with you. I think they have more authority in this matter.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
It is the public which cannot distinguish the different ways in which the evolution model is applied —
The Popes have **not **given blanket approval to every application of the evolution model.
Note: the public likes to cherry pick. I like to cherry pick. However, when I do that, I do not misinterpret what the author is saying. Big difference.
Unfortunately, for the readers of papal writings, the author does not cater to media sound bites. When one actually takes the time to actually study what the Popes have said in context or in relationship to Catholic doctrines, one finds out that there is no approval of all forms of the evolution model.
Popes know the difference between plants, porcupines, and people.
The Popes have **not **given blanket approval to every application of the evolution model.
Note: the public likes to cherry pick. I like to cherry pick. However, when I do that, I do not misinterpret what the author is saying. Big difference.
Unfortunately, for the readers of papal writings, the author does not cater to media sound bites. When one actually takes the time to actually study what the Popes have said in context or in relationship to Catholic doctrines, one finds out that there is no approval of all forms of the evolution model.
Popes know the difference between plants, porcupines, and people.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Of course not. But you have presented a very distorted view of what rossum said. He did not say there was any Catholic approval of any form of evolution, nor has anyone else in this thread said that. They merely said that the Nelka was wrong in saying “Evolution is completely at odds with the Catholic faith.” And rossum is entirely correct. Evolution is not at odds with the Catholic faith. The Church takes no position, one way or the other, on that scientific question. The Church leaves it up to the faithful to decide this question for themselves. That is what the recent Popes have said. And that is all that anyone is saying.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Really? That’s not what the Church teaches.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
This kind of discussion always makes me think of the above quote. Basically, we weren’t there. So we will never know with absolute certainity when or how.
However, God gave us curious minds. So research and changing our views of how the world works isn’t necessarily a bad thing (I for one like electricity, the combustible engine, dental x-rays).
And it just proves to me that God is and always will be, no matter how we came to that knowledge, no matter how humans came to exist, no matter how the earth came to exist. And He loves us always.
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
This kind of discussion always makes me think of the above quote. Basically, we weren’t there. So we will never know with absolute certainity when or how.
However, God gave us curious minds. So research and changing our views of how the world works isn’t necessarily a bad thing (I for one like electricity, the combustible engine, dental x-rays).
And it just proves to me that God is and always will be, no matter how we came to that knowledge, no matter how humans came to exist, no matter how the earth came to exist. And He loves us always.
E
edwest2
Guest
The media helps spread misconceptions and does cherry pick as far as this subject goes. When the Church says something negative about this subject, there is outrage. If it says something vaguely positive, the Church is praised. If there is a negative comment, a common reply is, “Well, is he a scientist?” If positive, then it doesn’t seem to matterIt is the public which cannot distinguish the different ways in which the evolution model is applied —
The Popes have **not **given blanket approval to every application of the evolution model.
Note: the public likes to cherry pick. I like to cherry pick. However, when I do that, I do not misinterpret what the author is saying. Big difference.
Unfortunately, for the readers of papal writings, the author does not cater to media sound bites. When one actually takes the time to actually study what the Popes have said in context or in relationship to Catholic doctrines, one finds out that there is no approval of all forms of the evolution model.
Popes know the difference between plants, porcupines, and people.
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
May I gently point out that post 51 was a general posting as one can tell since it did not have a quote from anyone. Now I would like to respectfully reply to your comments
“Evolution is not at odds with the Catholic faith.
The Church takes no position, one way or the other, on that scientific question.”
The above comment is not a new position. I would date it to the 1940-50’s, maybe earlier.
In post 33, Rossum presented section 36 from a 1950 document. I would suggest that everyone study it because it is not often quoted on CAF. While people are on the link, I suggest reading section 35. In that way, people are prepared for section 37 which has been on CAF so often that I have some of it memorized.
Link to Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
This is the beginning of post 35 which is my reply to Rossum whom I have known for a long time and whom I sincerely respect.
"This is true today. “Research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both fields” are still taking place.
Thank you.
The trouble with today’s “theistic evolution” is that some, not all, Catholics, from what I read on CAF, are stuck in the 1940-50’s and have not caught up with the current variety of evolution theories."
Today, as I look at Humani Generis, what is really fascinating is that in 1950, Pius XII saw a major contradiction between “evolution” and fundamental Catholic doctrines, which eventually exploded in the scientific world of 1995.
Considering what Blessed John Paul II said in 1996 regarding the intersection (contradiction) of natural science and specific Catholic doctrines, apparently, Catholics had continued to study where the “evolution” theory was headed.
Currently, the scientific world offers a material outlook on the whole human person, both body and soul. That old saying that science cannot study the spiritual soul worked in the distant past – this is where people need to catch up with the current evolution model. Today, there is the “evolutionary” theory of the emergence or epiphenomenon of the “material soul” which directly opposes the Catholic doctrines on human nature, decomposing anatomy and immortal spiritual soul. This evolution theory ties any kind of a spiritual-type experience to our physical anatomy. This material explanation directly opposes the Catholic doctrine of soul as being created by God at conception.
Years back, there was a brief discussion on CAF about research locating the spiritual soul’s volition in various sections of the brain as evinced during awake brain surgery. Because of access to the materials and methods section of this research, it was easily seen that the huge benefit of brain mapping could not simulate free will. Needless to say, research on the material brain continues to search for a material soul.
In 1996, Blessed John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. As scientists, this audience knew exactly what the Pope was referring to; while we may not have known. However, I believe that the Pope was clear enough when he said:
“Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
Link to address. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
K
kozlosap
Guest
:thumbsup:Thank our Lord, that as Catholics, we do not believe in the young earth nonsense or Sola Scriptura!!
E
edwest2
Guest
To grannymh,
Your replies are most helpful. It should be pointed out that a 21st Century document entitled Communion and Stewardship mentions Humani Generis in part 46.
“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Peace,
Ed
Your replies are most helpful. It should be pointed out that a 21st Century document entitled Communion and Stewardship mentions Humani Generis in part 46.
“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Peace,
Ed
- Status