Humani Generis, tool for modern apologetics

[Wesrock]

To clarify, HG does not state that Catholics cannot believe mankind evolved from a large breeding population. It states that Catholics “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, if you wish to go from what HG actually mandates to what you claim, you need to establish that they are logically identical and that any proposed distinction between the two is impossible.

You could say the burden is on me to propose a distinction, and that would be valid, but I’ve already gone over that extensively in two other recent topics and never received a satisfactory rebuttal of it. I don’t want to dive into all that again here, but you are leaping from what HG actually mandates to a much broader conclusion.

If we wish to stay focused on the wording of the document itself, I think I already made the point that your reply to me left out the appropriate context and specifics about what a Catholic is not at liberty to deny.

 

[grannymh]

So it’s not necessarily about the evolution of humans evolved from apes?

It’s about having more than two humans procreating?

Having more than two Adam’s and two Eve’s would prove original sin false, or at least have some humans free from original sin, or maybe not, because we get 50% DNA from each parent, so original sin would have been passed on through generation by either parent, but that’s considering Eve could have passed it on, which I think the church insists could not happen.

I suppose this is why science and religion cross roads, and would not agree with each other.

Humans did not evolve from apes or any animal. Genesis 1: 27

A pair of humans, male and female, can procreate. Genesis 2: 24

Human nature is not a lump of DNA. Genesis 1: 28.

Nothing can prove Original Sin false. Genesis 3: 11

It is the Science of Human Evolution which challenges basic Catholic doctrines.

 

[grannymh]

If we wish to stay focused on the wording of the document itself, I think I already made the point that your reply to me left out the appropriate context and specifics about what a Catholic is not at liberty to deny.

Catholics are not at liberty to deny that God directly created Adam and Eve as an unique species which did not evolve from a previous random breeding genetic population.

The problem word in *Humani Generis *is Polygenism. To get a handle on this word, please refer to the information in post 18.

 

[grannymh]

Two information links

Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

and

the article, “What You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution”, catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

We all are aware of the multiple ways human nature could have appeared on earth since the science in the 1940’s.

This is my personal observation, could be wrong, the new topic is Original Sin described according to modern human feelings. A good father would never leave the cover off the cookie jar.

Could Pope Pius XII be smart enough to see our century in paragraphs 11, 12, & 13, Humani Generis?

What information is missing in "What You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution"? Omitting information which is critical to forming correct Catholic beliefs can be serious.

---

 

[grannymh]

These simple powerful words are often overlooked.

Humani Generis, paragraph 37.

“the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church”

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

 

[Wesrock]

Catholics are not at liberty to deny that God directly created Adam and Eve as an unique species which did not evolve from a previous random breeding genetic population.

HG makes no comment to the effect that the evolution of man is ruled out. God has certainly directly created all things, evolution being no exclusion to that. Nor have I made a claim that human nature is reducible to “DNA.” I feel you’re attacking a strawman here.

The problem word in *Humani Generis *is Polygenism. To get a handle on this word, please refer to the information in post 18.

The document doesn’t forbid polygenism per se, but polygenist understandings that assert 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” or that deny original sin “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.”

 

[grannymh]

HG makes no comment to the effect that the evolution of man is ruled out. God has certainly directly created all things, evolution being no exclusion to that. Nor have I made a claim that human nature is reducible to “DNA.” I feel you’re attacking a strawman here.

The document doesn’t forbid polygenism per se, but polygenist understandings that assert 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” or that deny original sin “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.”

Thank you.

I have a question. In Humani Generis, how is Original Sin denied?

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you.

I have a question. In Humani Generis, how is Original Sin denied?

It isn’t. The meaning I intended is this:

The document doesn’t forbid polygenism per se, but polygenist understandings that … deny that original sin “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.”

 

[grannymh]

It isn’t. The meaning I intended is this:

The document doesn’t forbid polygenism per se, but polygenist understandings that … deny that original sin “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.”

Thank you.

An interesting word for polygenism is polygenesis which is a “development from more than one source.” (polygenesis, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition)

In my observation, it is apparent that not everyone is familiar with the Science of Human Evolution. Here, regardless of the poly-…, the reference can be used to describe a multi-genetic population leading down to the human species population in the hundreds or thousands.

 

[grannymh]

Humani Generis, paragraph 37 w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

1. 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 in 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.[12]

This paragraph is currently important because the Incarnation follows Original Sin. No Original Sin, no need for a Divine Redeemer. A human prophet among prophets is seen as sufficient. (modern Arianism) No individual Adam, no Original Sin, no need for a Divine reconciliation between humanity and Divinity (John 3: 16-17) and no need for the Catholic Church (Seven Sacraments) as it stands today. According to one of the notable internet writers – it is time to rebuild Christianity and one easy way is to put the first three outstanding chapters of Sacred Scripture into the trash bucket.

Looking for the above words in Humani Generis is useless. It is understanding the chain of events that is necessary.

 

[simpleas]

Humani Generis, paragraph 37 w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi…i-generis.html

1. 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.

When reading this bit above, Genesis 6 :1-4 popped into my mind. I know the church doesn’t have much reference to this piece of scripture, but I believe it was written by the same person who wrote the creation story of earth and man, they seemed to think it was important to write about it, as much as the rest of genesis.

Regarding polygenism, isn’t the now accepted theory about human origins monogenic?

Was monogenic theory known when Humani Generis was being written?

 

[grannymh]

When reading this bit above, Genesis 6 :1-4 popped into my mind. I know the church doesn’t have much reference to this piece of scripture, but I believe it was written by the same person who wrote the creation story of earth and man, they seemed to think it was important to write about it, as much as the rest of genesis.

Regarding polygenism, isn’t the now accepted theory about human origins monogenic?

Was monogenic theory known when Humani Generis was being written?

My apology and explanation. I only work with the first three valuable chapters of Genesis. The only thing I know about Genesis 6: 1-4 is that people talk about it. That discussion is beyond me.

Also, I am not sure if the term monogenic is used in the same manner as monogenism which is the truth that all humankind descended from a single original pair of humans known as Adam and Eve. (population of two)

In English the author who explained the dawn of human history in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis absolutely knew that all humankind descended from the sole founders (Eve & Adam) of the human species.

 

[grannymh]

If one only read the beginning paragraphs of this link
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

one could claim that it was written yesterday.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Also, I am not sure if the term monogenic is used in the same manner as monogenism which is the truth that all humankind descended from a single original pair of humans known as Adam and Eve. (population of two)

It seems to be :

Polygenism

Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human races are of different origins. This is opposite to the idea of monogenism, which posits a single origin of humanity. Modern scientific views no longer favor the polygenic model, with the monogenic “Out of Africa” theory being the most widely accepted model for human origins.

Polygenism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

 

[grannymh]

It seems to be :

Polygenism

Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human races are of different origins. This is opposite to the idea of monogenism, which posits a single origin of humanity. Modern scientific views no longer favor the polygenic model, with the monogenic “Out of Africa” theory being the most widely accepted model for human origins.

Polygenism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

I just lost my reply post and a link to help Catholics catch up with the Science of Human Evolution as referred to in Humani Generis, 1950.

I doubt if anyone seriously cares.

 

[simpleas]

I just lost my reply post and a link to help Catholics catch up with the Science of Human Evolution as referred to in Humani Generis, 1950.

I doubt if anyone seriously cares.

monogenic means involving or controlled by a single gene.

Isn’t this what you are ‘arguing’ for? That Adam and Eve were the first people which all people came from…a single gene?

 

[grannymh]

monogenic means involving or controlled by a single gene.

Isn’t this what you are ‘arguing’ for? That Adam and Eve were the first people which all people came from…a single gene?

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.

 

[simpleas]

Sorry to break the news. The answer is no.

Thanks.

That confirms 100% that I have no clue about this subject…

I shall leave quietly…

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

That confirms 100% that I have no clue about this subject…

I shall leave quietly…

My suggestion is to return to regular Catholic teachings instead of those by someone who refers to Original Sin as a fly in the ointment – where the solution is to go back to original blessings via the early Matthew Fox.

Catholicism does not need rebuilding as suggested by a Notable Progressive Christian.

 

[goout]

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.