Humani Generis, tool for modern apologetics

[simpleas]

Sorry to break the news.

The answer is no. Not from a single gene. Adam and Eve had all, meaning many, genes in order to be classified as the first human persons with a real fully complete genetic human nature.

I was thinking about it in terms of one gene which adam came from and then eve…

One gene not from some other being of the earth, but from God.

 

[simpleas]

The Catholic Church speaks about these things in context.

If Humanii Generis is read in full context, JP2’s comments on Humanii Generis from 1996 shed light on it. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
It’s not enough to cherry pick an older document to support a particular point of view, especially when the Church is commenting on something like scientific endeavor, which by nature progresses in knowledge.

What does this mean? :

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church speaks about these things in context.

If Humanii Generis is read in full context, JP2’s comments on Humanii Generis from 1996 shed light on it. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
It’s not enough to cherry pick an older document to support a particular point of view, especially when the Church is commenting on something like scientific endeavor, which by nature progresses in knowledge.

From your valuable link regarding Pope John Paul II comments. End of paragraph 5. Incompatible is a strong word.
“As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.”

 

[grannymh]

What does this mean? :

The “certain fixed points” are loud and clear Catholic teachings regarding the reality of an Original Sin. From Humani Generis, paragraph 37.
“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.”

Readers should understand that these words refer to previous teachings.
Paragraph 37.
“the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

 

[simpleas]

The “certain fixed points” are loud and clear Catholic teachings regarding the reality of an Original Sin. From Humani Generis, paragraph 37.
“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.”

Readers should understand that these words refer to previous teachings.
Paragraph 37.
“the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

I’m thinking about the evolution of man that the church has no problem with.

Before we get to Adam committing the original sin, what does the church believe concerning how Adam was created?

From the ground as stated in the bible? But that doesn’t include evolution?

From the ground, then evolving over many years into a human?

 

[grannymh]

I’m thinking about the evolution of man that the church has no problem with.

Before we get to Adam committing the original sin, what does the church believe concerning how Adam was created?

From the ground as stated in the bible? But that doesn’t include evolution?

From the ground, then evolving over many years into a human?

The Church has a serious problem with the Science of Human Evolution.

Regarding Adam. In general, Church teachings center on *what *was created.

 

[goout]

The Church has a serious problem with the Science of Human Evolution.

No.
The church has a serious problem with science that overreaches into theology.

Regarding Adam. In general, Church teachings center on *what *was created.

Not really true, although yes the what is part of it.

Genesis is not so much about the what and the how, it’s about who and why.

 

[goout]

What does this mean? :

Quote:
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

What do you think it means? It is fairly straightforward.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a picture of our family tree according to the Science of Human Evolution. Enjoy!

humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

 

[simpleas]

What do you think it means? It is fairly straightforward.

Well I think that it might mean that the church has no real problem with the theory that we may have evolved from other beings, much like the family tree grannymh has linked above.

I know the church insists that we must believe that all of human kind as we know ourselves to be, came from two beings who had a soul and committed original sin, and not from any other humans with souls that may not have committed sin or were not affected by the original sin.

 

[grannymh]

I was thinking about it in terms of one gene which adam came from and then eve…

One gene not from some other being of the earth, but from God.

What can be the reason for a new explanation?

 

[grannymh]

The name “Original Sin” comes from the fact that the one true person who severed humanity’s relationship with God is the Original human Adam.

 

[grannymh]

The name “Original Sin” comes from the fact that the one true person who severed humanity’s relationship with God is the Original human Adam.

The one Adam is connected to the one Jesus Who founded the one Catholic Church.

This is why Pope Pius XII purposely referred to “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.”
Paragraph 37, Humani Generis.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The “sources of revealed truth” are found in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Index of Citations, beginning on page 689.

Note: paragraph 38 has an interesting follow-up.

 

[simpleas]

What can be the reason for a new explanation?

Originally Posted by simpleas
I was thinking about it in terms of one gene which adam came from and then eve…

One gene not from some other being of the earth, but from God.

I’m not sure this is what the church teaches, since it doesn’t have a problem with evolution, but evolution is what terms does the church mean?

Everything else in the world, animals, plants etc evolve, but not us humans, we are separately made from the earth but not from another being. Is that a church teaching, or can it just be believed/thought on this way?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure this is what the church teaches, since it doesn’t have a problem with evolution, but evolution is what terms does the church mean?

Everything else in the world, animals, plants etc evolve, but not us humans, we are separately made from the earth but not from another being. Is that a church teaching, or can it just be believed/thought on this way?

Who told you that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with evolution theory?

Have you read the dramatic leap from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:27?

Do you understand the difference between animals and humans? Genesis 1: 27?

Skip the first question.

It is not necessary for me to know how you found the idea that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with evolution.

The leap from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 27 is the base for the Catholic teaching that there are two worlds, the material one and the spiritual one. The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, teaches us that the nature of humans uniquely unites the material and spiritual so that this God created union forms one single nature–ours.

An essential difference between animals and humans is that animals, even the highly sentient ones, do not have a rational spiritual soul which allows them to share in the life of our Divine Creator God. Yes, persons want their pets to follow them into heaven. That is due to a common misunderstanding about the Beatific Vision. One has to be “spiritual” in order to contemplate God in heavenly glory. Genesis 1: 27.

In your meditation on the above, please do not confuse Genesis 2: 7 with Genesis 1: 27.

When the above is truly understood, it will be simple to understand why the basic evolution theory used in the current Science of Human Evolution is not approved by the Catholic Church.

Comments? Questions?

 

[grannymh]

Here is the popular CCC paragraph which can be used with post 55.

It is often used when one is studying the first three scary chapters of Genesis. Sadly, many CAF participants ignore the words “affirms a primeval event”.

I put the important information in bold.

**CCC 390 **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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Who told you that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with evolution theory?

Pope John Paul 2 say’s it here :

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

I did ask what this meant, you gave an answer that was referring to original sin, but I was asking what the church means by evolution. (post 45)

I won’t address the rest of your post as I’m surprised you asked such questions as I think we have covered those areas before.

 

[grannymh]

Pope John Paul 2 say’s it here :

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

.

Please refer to the end of the sentence
“provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”

The reference in section 3 is to Humani Generis which clearly states the conflict between Catholic doctrine and the Science of Human Evolution .

These words
“regarding man and his vocation,”
refers directly to the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic teaching of a two-individual (Adam and Eve) new species evolution.

 

[grannymh]

Pope John Paul 2 say’s it here :

I did ask what this meant, you gave an answer that was referring to original sin, but I was asking what the church means by evolution. (post 45)

When the Church refers to evolution, it is referring to the scientific evolution theory.

Maybe you are referring to the different ways the scientific evolution theory is applied.
For example. the scientific evolution theory can be applied to animals, bacteria, etc., because these items are in the material world. Regarding the scientific evolution theory in the material world, every Catholic, including the Pope, has the opportunity for free speech. In other words, regarding the material world, there are opinions, speculations, new theories. None are official Catholic doctrines. Humani Generis refers to official Catholic doctrines. Paragraphs 36-37.

I realize that the above is difficult. And that is only the beginning. My personal preference is to begin evolution discussion with a clear understanding of the spiritual world and the material world. When that becomes solid information, then we can move to human nature which is an unique union of the spiritual world (rational soul) and the material world (decomposing anatomy).

 

[simpleas]

Thanks Grannymh.

This sounds straight forward enough for me :

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin’s theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church