Father Robert Barron said that Adam was a figurative figure not a literal one? Help!

[catholictiger]

Hmmm… Mark Shea vs Pope Pius XII, who wins? Obviously, the Pope does.

mark shea is interpreting what the Pope said, he is in no way contradicting what he said.

If you have any background in dogmatic theology you will understand that this teaching is not definitive meaning it is not infallible, it is possible that in the future a theologian posits an idea that gives new insight to the Church and they shift their focus on the issue of polygensism, and the words of pius quoted bellow doesn’t make it definitive or make the matter closed. He is saying in the Catholic Church of today there is no apparent way you can reconcile polygenism with original sin. Again no apparent way doesn’t close the matter.

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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. **Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, **which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

again please read the article

 

[catholictiger]

I suppose you’re correct, in that the Church does not have the authority to rule on the biology of monogenism. But this does not mean that the Church cannot teach that monogenism is true, which is what she does.

read Pope John Paul II letter to vatican observatory hopefully that makes it clear.

 

[JamesTheJust]

mark shea is interpreting what the Pope said, he is in no way contradicting what he said.

If you have any background in dogmatic theology you will understand that this teaching is not definitive meaning it is not infallible, it is possible that in the future a theologian posits an idea that gives new insight to the Church and they shift their focus on the issue of polygensism, and the words of pius quoted bellow doesn’t make it definitive or make the matter closed. He is saying in the Catholic Church of today there is no apparent way you can reconcile polygenism with original sin. Again no apparent way doesn’t close the matter.

The bold is incorrect.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

• Humani Generis, #20

Once a doctrine has been pronounced, it is binding on all Catholics.

 

[JamesTheJust]

let me rephrase to make it clearer, Pope Pius phrased it in such a way to condemn those who teach polytheism but not make it to where it will never be the case.

Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods. This is irreconcilable with Christianity. Polygenism is different, but just as erroneous.

Pope Pius says that Polygenism isn’t compatible with tradition and scripture, if he finished it there the matter would be closed BUT he gives an escape clause as my article suggests. It is no way apparent makes it sound like it could change in the future.

That “escape clause” is an invention of Mark Shea. See here for an expert defense of monogenism:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-robert-barron-denies-that-adam-was.html?m=1

there have been times when a development of doctrine appears like a complete change when it is really not. Vatican I condemned modernism, Vatican II wrote to the modern world. Is Vatican II doing what Vatican I condemned, no doctrine developed. If the living tradition of the Catholic Church develops to a point where it can be shown how polygenism is compatible with original sin than pope pius condemnation will no longer apply.

Vatican I condemned the modern world, but the fact is, we live in it, so Vatican II tried to establish relations with the world. No contradiction there. But if Vatican II un-condemned Modernism, as you are suggesting the Church could do with its condemnation of polygenism, that would be a contradiction.

 

[catholictiger]

The bold is incorrect.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

• Humani Generis, #20

Once a doctrine has been pronounced, it is binding on all Catholics.

there are four types of magisterial statements

1. Ordinary universal magisterium. This is when all the bishops and the pope speak in agreement on a mater
2. extraordinary universal magisterium. this is when the majority of the bishops join for an ecumenical council and make definitive statements.
3. ordinary papal magisterium. This is any statement the pope makes as a teacher of the Catholic faith.
4. extraordinary papal magisterium. only used twice officially maybe more unofficially, but this is when the pope speaks ex-cathedra and infallibly
5. 1. and 4) have the protection of infallibility 3) doesn’t. Now I believe that a Catholic should listen to and hold fast to everything a pope says, but it is possible that a pope can speak in error.

but I don’t think this matters in Para 37

because pope pius explains that now it is not apparent that polygenism . . . .

if one day it does become apparent then the pope’s statement will no longer apply.

I’ve made my point enough on this matter, I’m not going to go back and forth saying the same thing over and over agin.

 

[Aloysium]

When all the data is in, when the definitions have been clarified and the correct statistics are applied, it will be shown that man came from two parents, as has been revealed.
Thomas needed to see Jesus’ wounds to believe.

 

[JamesTheJust]

there are four types of magisterial statements

1. Ordinary universal magisterium. This is when all the bishops and the pope speak in agreement on a mater
2. extraordinary universal magisterium. this is when the majority of the bishops join for an ecumenical council and make definitive statements.
3. ordinary papal magisterium. This is any statement the pope makes as a teacher of the Catholic faith.
4. extraordinary papal magisterium. only used twice officially maybe more unofficially, but this is when the pope speaks ex-cathedra and infallibly
5. 1. and 4) have the protection of infallibility 3) doesn’t. Now I believe that a Catholic should listen to and hold fast to everything a pope says, but it is possible that a pope can speak in error.

but I don’t think this matters in Para 37

because pope pius explains that now it is not apparent that polygenism . . . .

if one day it does become apparent then the pope’s statement will no longer apply.

I’ve made my point enough on this matter, I’m not going to go back and forth saying the same thing over and over agin.

I guess you’re just choosing to ignore truth. All teaching of the Church is binding, authoritative, and unchangeable, no matter what level of the Magisterium it comes from.

I’ve refuted your arguments time and time again, yet you refuse to respond and reiterate your initial point, about which you then complain.

 

[JamesTheJust]

When all the data is in, when the definitions have been clarified and the correct statistics are applied, it will be shown that man came from two parents, as has been revealed.
Thomas needed to see Jesus’ wounds to believe.

Indeed.

 

[catholictiger]

Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods. This is irreconcilable with Christianity. Polygenism is different, but just as erroneous.

That “escape clause” is an invention of Mark Shea. See here for an expert defense of monogenism:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-robert-barron-denies-that-adam-was.html?m=1

Vatican I condemned the modern world, but the fact is, we live in it, so Vatican II tried to establish relations with the world. No contradiction there. But if Vatican II un-condemned Modernism, as you are suggesting the Church could do with its condemnation of polygenism, that would be a contradiction.

I’ve addressed these before but one thing

what gives Dave Armstrong credibility, does he have a degree in theology?

Fr. Barron does and he is the rector at a pretty well respected seminary

Mark Shea isn’t the one making the argument he says

I wrote to a friend whose theological training is specifically focused on how to understand the degrees of assent required by various church documents. Said I regarding the quote from Humani Generis above:

I also spoke to someone I trust and who is very orthodox who has a doctorate in theology (I think dogmatic theology, meaning this would be his expertise and I know he writes on creation and the catholic faith this is his biggest expertise so he would know this statement) he told me pretty much exactly what I have been arguing here. I approached him one day after class and asked him did Pope Pius say that Catholics are obligated to believe in monogenism, he corrected me and said something along the lines of what is stated in the article. He said currently tradition sees no connection between polygenism and original sin but that could change.

I say this with the backing of theologians who are seemingly orthodox and know their stuff. I trust their word on the Pope’s statement.

note: for privacy reasons I will not revel the person I know with a doctorate in theology.

This is like the 5th time I’ve made this same statement.

I’m out for the night

have a good one

God bless.

 

[catholictiger]

When all the data is in, when the definitions have been clarified and the correct statistics are applied, it will be shown that man came from two parents, as has been revealed.
Thomas needed to see Jesus’ wounds to believe.

I don’t disagree

all I’m saying is that the Church hasn’t closed this discussion.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I’ve addressed these before but one thing

what gives Dave Armstrong credibility, does he have a degree in theology?

Ignoring Mr. Armstrong’s arguments due to his lack of a theological degree is ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

Fr. Barron does and he is the rector at a pretty well respected seminary

And it’s already been proven that he holds to monogenism.

Mark Shea isn’t the one making the argument he says

I also spoke to someone I trust and who is very orthodox who has a doctorate in theology (I think dogmatic theology, meaning this would be his expertise and I know he writes on creation and the catholic faith this is his biggest expertise so he would know this statement) he told me pretty much exactly what I have been arguing here. I approached him one day after class and asked him did Pope Pius say that Catholics are obligated to believe in monogenism, he corrected me and said something along the lines of what is stated in the article. He said currently tradition sees no connection between polygenism and original sin but that could change.

Yet, you give no proof for this claim, only that your friend who apparently has theological experience said it. That’s the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I don’t disagree

all I’m saying is that the Church hasn’t closed this discussion.

As has been shown, encyclicals definitively and authoritatively close a doctrine. Do you need more proof?

 

[catholictiger]

As has been shown, encyclicals definitively and authoritatively close a doctrine. Do you need more proof?

not always

when a pope closes or settles an issue in the Church he must make it clear that the universal magisterium of the Church teaches this. This happens many times in these documents, but the pope can say things that are up to interpretation that are not clear, it’s not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

 

[Contarini]

The bold is incorrect.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

• Humani Generis, #20

Once a doctrine has been pronounced, it is binding on all Catholics.

Note the careful language, though–it doesn’t say that it couldn’t be reopened. I think it’s untenable historically to maintain that every doctrinal statement in an encyclical is infallible, but even if you do claim that, the only way you could possibly make it stick is by methods of interpretation no more problematic than those used, for instance, by Mark Shea with regard to Humani Generis.

We’ve been round and round this before with regard to Pope Leo’s Exsurge Domine, which condemned Luther for saying that burning heretics was “against the will of the Spirit.” One solution some folks have adopted is to say that Pope Leo was really just saying that Luther shouldn’t have said that he knew the mind of the Spirit.

If you can accept this, then reconciling polygenism with HG should be a piece of cake. The “escape clause” suggested by Mark Shea (which you dismiss above by citing Dave Armstrong, though Dave isn’t actually responding to Mark’s argument in that article at all) is right there in the text: “It is in no way apparent how this can be reconciled” and therefore “the faithful cannot accept.” That pretty obviously leaves open the possibility for further development.

Whatever Pope Pius may have wished, historically papal condemnations don’t close debates. At their best, they push debates to a new level by condemning the solutions so far suggested. At their worst, they just force the debate underground (or worse in some ways, silence faithful theologians with genuine questions and leave the field to the open dissenters and the intransigent defenders of the status quo, as has happened with women’s ordination) until a later Pope or Council signals that it can be reopened again.

Edwin

 

[catholictiger]

Note the careful language, though–it doesn’t say that it couldn’t be reopened. I think it’s untenable historically to maintain that every doctrinal statement in an encyclical is infallible, but even if you do claim that, the only way you could possibly make it stick is by methods of interpretation no more problematic than those used, for instance, by Mark Shea with regard to Humani Generis.

We’ve been round and round this before with regard to Pope Leo’s Exsurge Domine, which condemned Luther for saying that burning heretics was “against the will of the Spirit.” One solution some folks have adopted is to say that Pope Leo was really just saying that Luther shouldn’t have said that he knew the mind of the Spirit.

If you can accept this, then reconciling polygenism with HG should be a piece of cake. The “escape clause” suggested by Mark Shea (which you dismiss above by citing Dave Armstrong, though Dave isn’t actually responding to Mark’s argument in that article at all) is right there in the text: “It is in no way apparent how this can be reconciled” and therefore “the faithful cannot accept.” That pretty obviously leaves open the possibility for further development.

Whatever Pope Pius may have wished, historically papal condemnations don’t close debates. At their best, they push debates to a new level by condemning the solutions so far suggested. At their worst, they just force the debate underground (or worse in some ways, silence faithful theologians with genuine questions and leave the field to the open dissenters and the intransigent defenders of the status quo, as has happened with women’s ordination) until a later Pope or Council signals that it can be reopened again.

Edwin

it is clear when the Pope is claiming something as infallible he has to be because if it is left up to interpretation than those who disagree with don’t have to support their claims. The burden of proof falls on those who claim infallibility, so if they disagree with infallibility they say why is it infallible I don’t see it.

The pope will say something along the lines of. Jesus taught this way so therefore it follows that X. Holy mother Church says this so X. The universal body of bishops says X, the universal magisterium says X.

many times the Pope will speak in a way to give the currently theological understanding of the Church on a certain issue but speak in such a way that theologians can dissent with this view and no be dissenting with something that is official Church teaching.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Note the careful language, though–it doesn’t say that it couldn’t be reopened. I think it’s untenable historically to maintain that every doctrinal statement in an encyclical is infallible, but even if you do claim that, the only way you could possibly make it stick is by methods of interpretation no more problematic than those used, for instance, by Mark Shea with regard to Humani Generis.

Encyclicals aren’t infallible. But they are authoritative and are enough to close discussion on a matter.

We’ve been round and round this before with regard to Pope Leo’s Exsurge Domine, which condemned Luther for saying that burning heretics was “against the will of the Spirit.” One solution some folks have adopted is to say that Pope Leo was really just saying that Luther shouldn’t have said that he knew the mind of the Spirit.

If you can accept this, then reconciling polygenism with HG should be a piece of cake. The “escape clause” suggested by Mark Shea (which you dismiss above by citing Dave Armstrong, though Dave isn’t actually responding to Mark’s argument in that article at all) is right there in the text: “It is in no way apparent how this can be reconciled” and therefore “the faithful cannot accept.” That pretty obviously leaves open the possibility for further development.

Yeah, and the fact that they are irreconcilable won’t change. The Church teaches monogenism. This is final.

Encyclicals don’t have escape clauses. That idea is Mark Shea’s invention. Armstrong’s article is a guide on how to interpret HG, not a direct response to Mark Shea.

Whatever Pope Pius may have wished, historically papal condemnations don’t close debates. At their best, they push debates to a new level by condemning the solutions so far suggested. At their worst, they just force the debate underground (or worse in some ways, silence faithful theologians with genuine questions and leave the field to the open dissenters and the intransigent defenders of the status quo, as has happened with women’s ordination) until a later Pope or Council signals that it can be reopened again.

Condemnations do close debates, when published in an encyclical.

 

[Contarini]

Encyclicals don’t have escape clauses. That idea is Mark Shea’s invention.

It’s right there in the text. Mark Shea didn’t invent it. He’s just pointing it out to a non-academic audience. Fr. Barron doesn’t have the patience to do so, probably because Fr. Barron is an academic who is used to interacting with people who think he’s pretty much a flaming fundamentalist, and finds it hard to take the trouble to defend himself against people who think he’s a liberal.

Condemnations do close debates, when published in an encyclical.

Name one that did?

Edwin

Edwin

 

[JamesTheJust]

From the Catholic Dictionary’s entry on monogenism:

“The doctrine that the human race derived from one original human being, identified in Scripture with Adam. This is the Church’s constant traditional teaching. In the Creed of Pope Pelagius I (reigned 556-61) we read: ‘Iconfess that all men until the end of time, born of Adam and dying with Adam, his wife, who themselves were not born of other parents . . . will rise and stand firm before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive each one according to his works’ (Denzinger, 228a)”

 

[catholictiger]

Encyclicals aren’t infallible. But they are authoritative and are enough to close discussion on a matter.

Yeah, and the fact that they are irreconcilable won’t change. The Church teaches monogenism. This is final.

Encyclicals don’t have escape clauses. That idea is Mark Shea’s invention. Armstrong’s article is a guide on how to interpret HG, not a direct response to Mark Shea.

Condemnations do close debates, when published in an encyclical.

you are making to broad of statements on encyclicals.

if your going to say armstrong’s article is a guide on how to interpret HG, what makes him more knowledgeable than Mark Shea?

I know you will claim I’m doing an ad homine argument, but if you going to put this guy on high throne and say he is the correct interpretation and people who disagree with them are wrong than his credibility must come into question.

It’s one thing to make an argument for a issue to be completely closed, it is another thing to say this man is correct and he is who catholics should follow and believe.

I will address the article itself later, but the way you present your blog article means I’m able to question his credibility.

just for analogy sake let me say this

if you say that X is a good guide to interpret scripture. I would say what makes this guy a good guide, what gives him credibility?

I’m doing the same thing here.

 

[catholictiger]

From the Catholic Dictionary’s entry on monogenism:

“The doctrine that the human race derived from one original human being, identified in Scripture with Adam. This is the Church’s constant traditional teaching. In the Creed of Pope Pelagius I (reigned 556-61) we read: ‘Iconfess that all men until the end of time, born of Adam and dying with Adam, his wife, who themselves were not born of other parents . . . will rise and stand firm before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive each one according to his works’ (Denzinger, 228a)”

first this was mentioned 1500 years ago so because of this doesn’t represent the current mageisterium. Just because a pope 1500 years ago said X doesn’t necessarily mean that it still applies today. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples of something a pope said in the 6th century is different than something a pope said in the 20th or 21st century, but it can happen. We as Catholic are obligated to follow the current magisterium not a past magisterium. This is the issues of those who don’t believe in the authority of the Vatican II, they are obeying a magisterium that no longer exists and only existed prior to Vatican II, now the magisterium has developed its teaching to develop the liturgy to what we have now. I’m not saying you are doing this but just be careful when you post what centuries old popes say about certain issues there is the possibility that a more current pope clarified that pope’s teaching which would change the interpretation of a certain issue.

For example many incorrectly say only baptized Catholics and practicing catholics can be said based on the statement that no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, later popes clarified this to say that it is through the Church that people have salvation, non Catholics and even non-Christians have the possibility of salvation.