EVOLUTION: what about this

[Dispector]

At what point in history was this so-called breeding population of evolving humans infused with an immortal soul by God?

Do you believe that Adam and Eve were merely two members of this evolving breeding population, and not the parents of all humankind?

Pope Pius XII made an address regarding evolution in Humani Generis which follows:
Pope Pius XII:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

So, although evolution may address the question of how humans physically came to be it still fails to answer the question of how souls come to be. Catholic doctrine holds that souls are created immediately by God. Evolution is not contradictory to this theory.

 

[edwest2]

The Pope also made it clear that an examination, both pro and con, be conducted in regard to the theory of evolution. Breeding populations appear to be entirely inconsistent with Humani Generis.

Miracles are things God can do. The entire life of Jesus Christ falls into that category. Science can only go so far. If we are Catholics, there are certain truths that exist outside of science. And these things are historically as well as spiritually true. The Catholic Church also teaches that anyone can detect God in nature through natural reason.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

At what point in history was this so-called breeding population of evolving humans infused with an immortal soul by God? Do you believe that Adam and Eve were merely two members of this evolving breeding population, and not the parents of all humankind?

(1) I regard the infusion of immortal souls as an incoherent idea. Humans evolved moral and spiritual consciousness over a long period of time. The theological symbolism of Genesis encapsulates this in Gen. 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” If you find it helpful to accept the literal creation of “Adam” 6,000-10,000 years ago, then by all means do so.

(2) Since I regard “Adam” and “Eve” as theological symbols, I regard them symbolically as the parents of humankind.

StAnastasia

 

[Dispector]

The Pope also made it clear that an examination, both pro and con, be conducted in regard to the theory of evolution. Breeding populations appear to be entirely inconsistent with Humani Generis.

I question this part, but am too tired to argue any point. Maybe later?

edwest:

Miracles are things God can do. The entire life of Jesus Christ falls into that category. Science can only go so far. If we are Catholics, there are certain truths that exist outside of science. And these things are historically as well as spiritually true. The Catholic Church also teaches that anyone can detect God in nature through natural reason.

And I, without a doubt, agree with everything said here.

Happy New Year Brother.

 

[Marocchino]

(1) I regard the infusion of immortal souls as an incoherent idea. Humans evolved moral and spiritual consciousness over a long period of time.

An immortal soul is a soul that survives death and experiences an afterlife. If humans evolved a moral and spiritual consciousness, at what point in history did humans experience an afterlife after physical death?

If you find it helpful to accept the literal creation of “Adam” 6,000-10,000 years ago, then by all means do so.

I am not interested in what is helpful. I am interested in the truth – ie, what Scripture and Tradition teach.

(2) Since I regard “Adam” and “Eve” as theological symbols, I regard them symbolically as the parents of humankind.

If you regard Adam and Eve as theological symbols and not real people, you are engaging in private interpretation of Scripture.

The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr Ludwig Ott (1974):
The whole human race stems from one single human pair [sententia certa]. This teaching pertains to the Faith. It is theologically certain. It is a doctrine on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of Revelation. Whilst not a dogma, the unity of the human race is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption.

According to the 1909 Biblical Commission, the literal historical sense is not to be doubted in regard to:
The first man was tested by God to prove his obedience
Through the Devil’s temptation the first man transgressed the divine command
From the Original Sin, our first parents, Adam and Eve, were deprived of their original condition of innocence.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950 – All human beings now on Earth have Adam for their ancestor. Because of this descent from Adam, we are born with Original Sin.

Vatican II affirms that Adam and Eve were real people – not mere theological symbols:

Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, 1964, - sections 2 & 56;
Nostra aetate, Vatican II, 1965, - section 1.
On the Church in the Modern World, Vatican II, 1965, - sections 13, 18 & 22. **Adam, said Gaudium et Spes, was the 1st man, and man would have been immune from bodily death if sin had not entered the world through him. **
Credo of the People of God, Pope Paul VI, 1968.
In 1979 Pope John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis sections 1, 8 & 14.

The Catechism affirms that Adam and Eve were real people:

Paragraph 360 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”. [See also: CCC 28, 225, 360, 404, 412, 416, 417, 775, 831, 842, 1939]

Paragraph 375 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that **our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.” **

Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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.

Source: 74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:x_6LCDIezmQJ:www.scta.org.au/catholicanswers/21-22adameve.doc+adam+and+eve+and+real+and+catholic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8

 

[StAnastasia]

An immortal soul is a soul that survives death and experiences an afterlife. If humans evolved a moral and spiritual consciousness, at what point in history did humans experience an afterlife after physical death?]

At no point in history have humans experienced an afterlife after physical death. We hope for it; we believe the apostles’ encounters of the risen Jesus testify to it, but we have not experienced it.

And there is no empirical evidence of an immortal soul (despite the attempts of spiritualist mediums to channel the dead. I wonder if the concept of an “immortal soul” is even helpful, theologically speaking. Human experience is intrinsically embodied, not disembodied, so I can’t see that the idea of primarily “soulish” existence is particularly meaningful.

 

[rossum]

Pius XII

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.

NO POPE HAS OFFICIALLY OVERTURNED THIS S TATMENT----YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!

There is no contradiction between that statement and evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Please explain how an evolutionary process can produce one human couple from whom all humans are descended by natural generation.

Certainly. Here is one possibility, which you may have seen me post before:

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

You may or may not agree with this scenario, but it does show how “an evolutionary process can produce one human couple from whom all humans are descended by natural generation”.

rossum

 

[Rogerteder]

Certainly. Here is one possibility, which you may have seen me post before:

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

You may or may not agree with this scenario, but it does show how “an evolutionary process can produce one human couple from whom all humans are descended by natural generation”.

rossum

Problem: Almost all the Fathers(except for Origen and possibly Augustine) of the Church took Genesis literally. Leo XIII and other Popes said the literal sense of scripture must be taken unless there is clear evidence in the text that suggests otherwise. There is simply nothing in Catholic tradition that has even the slightest suggestion as to what you are saying.

 

[Orogeny]

Problem: Almost all the Fathers(except for Origen and possibly Augustine) of the Church took Genesis literally. Leo XIII and other Popes said the literal sense of scripture must be taken unless there is clear evidence in the text that suggests otherwise. There is simply nothing in Catholic tradition that has even the slightest suggestion as to what you are saying.

This is what it really comes down to. Either you accept the science or reject it because the Church didn’t have the science at their disposal 1500 years ago. Your approach is clear - we are locked in our understanding of divine revelation to that which was accepted 1500 years ago. We cannot learn anything from scriptures and the Church cannot develope a deeper understanding over time. We truly are required to believe a literal 6 day creation 6,000 years ago and that the earth is the immovable center of the universe. We MUST reject science.

I reject your version of the faith. I will NOT deny the intelligence that God gave to us simply because some people are scared of the implications to THEIR faith. I will side with our Pope.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

(1) I regard the infusion of immortal souls as an incoherent idea. Humans evolved moral and spiritual consciousness over a long period of time. The theological symbolism of Genesis encapsulates this in Gen. 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” If you find it helpful to accept the literal creation of “Adam” 6,000-10,000 years ago, then by all means do so.

(2) Since I regard “Adam” and “Eve” as theological symbols, I regard them symbolically as the parents of humankind.

StAnastasia

By your own authority. Your view is heretical. One cannot remain Catholic with these positions. Your best bet would be scientism as your religion.

You also pose a danger to many seeking answers to their questions.

 

[StAnastasia]

You also pose a danger to many seeking answers to their questions.

No danger to people with the maturity to think on their own!

 

[Marocchino]

At no point in history have humans experienced an afterlife after physical death.

My question was – at what point in history did humans begin to experience an afterlife after physical death?

If humans evolved, there must have been some point at which the children of some hypothetical creature with a human body and no immortal soul would experience an afterlife, while their immortal soul-less parents would not.

And there is no empirical evidence of an immortal soul.

The immortal soul is immaterial and thus not an object of science.

But there is empirical evidence of the existence of disembodied spirits – there are cases of demon possession documented in Scripture and throughout history.

Catechism 1021-22:

The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593–or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The words of our Lord and his apostles, who speak of the afterlife and Adam as if they do exist, are enough evidence for me.

I wonder if the concept of an “immortal soul” is even helpful, theologically speaking.

If you believe that the concept of an immortal soul is not “theologically helpful”, do you suggest that the Catechism be revised to not include this concept?

Human experience is intrinsically embodied, not disembodied, so I can’t see that the idea of primarily “soulish” existence is particularly meaningful.

Human experience is intrinsically embodied, which is why Scripture and Tradition teach that our soul will be reunited with our body at the end of time – at the Resurrection of the Dead. The Sadducees also doubted this teaching of Christ. You are in bad company.

Catechism 1060:

At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

Do you believe what the Church teaches or do you demand empirical evidence for all of this?

Are you a Catholic or an agnostic? I know what is says in your profile, but your words betray this.

 

[buffalo]

No danger to people with the maturity to think on their own!

You don’t have the accumulated knowledge nor wisdom of the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. :nope:

Protestants go at it by themselves.

 

[StAnastasia]

You don’t have the accumulated knowledge nor wisdom of the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. Protestants go at it by themselves.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t protect lies. Promoting false worldviews hundreds of years after science has proven them to be false is not in the Holy Spirit’s job description. I trust the world’s hundreds of thousands of scientists to discover scientific truth; the Magisterium has no competence in this sphere. To bow down before a collection of bishops and cardinal as they weigh in on geocentrism, gravity, cell theory, continental drift, evolution, quantum theory, and other scientific perspectives would be scientific nonsense,

StAnastasia

 

[Marocchino]

To bow down before a collection of bishops and cardinal as they weigh in on geocentrism, gravity, cell theory, continental drift, evolution, quantum theory, and other scientific perspectives would be scientific nonsense

Your time would be better spent addressing the questions that I posted above than committing the straw-man fallacy.

 

[buffalo]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t protect lies. Promoting false worldviews hundreds of years after science has proven them to be false is not in the Holy Spirit’s job description. I trust the world’s hundreds of thousands of scientists to discover scientific truth; the Magisterium has no competence in this sphere. To bow down before a collection of bishops and cardinal as they weigh in on geocentrism, gravity, cell theory, continental drift, evolution, quantum theory, and other scientific perspectives would be scientific nonsense,

StAnastasia

Genesis is a lie? Wow! The constant teaching of the Church is a lie? Wow!

The Holy Spirit only recently decided to intervene? Wow!

You obviously do not know your faith very well. You are guilty of scientism and heresy.

 

[Sinner1]

You don’t have the accumulated knowledge nor wisdom of the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. :nope:

Protestants go at it by themselves.

Does the Holy Spirit protect the Magisterium from making inaccurate scientific statements?

 

[Marocchino]

Here are my questions, which went unanswered, again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StAnastasia
*At no point in history have humans experienced an afterlife after physical death. *

My question was – at what point in history did humans begin to experience an afterlife after physical death?

If humans evolved, there must have been some point at which the children of some hypothetical creature with a human body and no immortal soul would experience an afterlife, while their immortal soul-less parents would not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StAnastasia
*And there is no empirical evidence of an immortal soul. *

The immortal soul is immaterial and thus not an object of science.

But there is empirical evidence of the existence of disembodied spirits – there are cases of demon possession documented in Scripture and throughout history.

Catechism 1021-22:

Quote:
The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593–or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The words of our Lord and his apostles, who speak of the afterlife and Adam as if they do exist, are enough evidence for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StAnastasia
*I wonder if the concept of an “immortal soul” is even helpful, theologically speaking. *

If you believe that the concept of an immortal soul is not “theologically helpful”, do you suggest that the Catechism be revised to not include this concept?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StAnastasia
*Human experience is intrinsically embodied, not disembodied, so I can’t see that the idea of primarily “soulish” existence is particularly meaningful. *

Human experience is intrinsically embodied, which is why Scripture and Tradition teach that our souls will be reunited with our bodies at the end of time – at the Resurrection of the Dead. The Sadducees also doubted this teaching of Christ. You are in bad company.

Catechism 1060:

Quote:
At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

Do you believe what the Church teaches or do you demand empirical evidence for all of this?

Are you a Catholic or an agnostic? I know what is says in your profile, but your words betray this.

 

[buffalo]

Does the Holy Spirit protect the Magisterium from making inaccurate scientific statements?

Any individual could make inaccurate statements including a Pope. The Church has constantly taught certain things that do indeed intersect with science. Science actually is, seeking knowledge through observation. Some things have been revealed to us by God. These would be non-negotiable. If there is a differing scientific opinion then it has to reconcile itself with revealed truth or it cannot be true in itself.

The question remains for some - did we get it right all these years? Could we have made a mistake? Where is the Holy Spirit? Was He sleeping? Or do we have to have a contemporary paradigm shift in how we reason current scientific findings? The caveat is we are limited in our understanding to human reasoning limitations, our 5 senses, and 3 dimensions and time.

This is pretty much the crux of the debate. Did we not understand this all this time? If so, why didn’t the Holy Spirit protect the Revealed truth?

Perplexing indeed.

Quantum physics show us that the observer can change outcomes. Perhaps we need to hone our observational skills. Another thought - if the cumulative worldview is agnostic will that change the outcome?