Many Adams and Eves?

[ALISANDRO]

The Eucharistic “Miracle” takes place during the beautiful, prayerful section called the Eucharistic Prayer – the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration which is the heart and summit of the celebration.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1348 -1355 describe the “movement” or parts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It gives technical names for the parts of the Eucharistic prayer which begins with giving thanks and praise to the Father, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Then the priest in our name by the use of the word “we” asks the Father to accept and bless the gifts of bread and wine by sending the power of the Holy Spirit. The institution narrative follows, i.e., on the night Jesus was betrayed, He took bread and the cup of wine, said the blessing, and gave them to the disciples.

There are slightly different versions of the Eucharistic Prayer but they all result in the same action of Transubstantiation. The Catechism simply states: “In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, His sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.” (CCC 1353)

The words from the Last Supper are called the Consecration of the Bread and Wine. These words are the holiest of all. This would be considered the place of Transubstantiation. It is important to remember that this happens through the power of the Holy Spirit with the priest acting in persona, the Latin for “in the Person of Christ.”
.

Blessings,
granny

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition – www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
A paragraph number or words can be put in the search bar.

.
Thank you granny for your in-depth description of the Mass and the Miracle of Transubstanciation. I attended many Masses long ago and was always impressed with the solemnity of the ceremony, I have, however never accepted Transubstanciation simply because I understood that the sacrifices carried out in Old Testament days were a “figure” of the Perfect Sacrifice that was to come. It is my understanding that a lamb without spot, or blemish was sacrificed (killed) instead of the sinner. However, the blood of the sacrifice was not drunk, but sprinkled on the altar. For this reason I have always considered that the wafer and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of our Lord, and that it is our act of partaking of these symbols that is important.
Christian regards, ALISANDRO.

 

[grannymh]

The mark was placed to prevent vengance. Cain’s sin caused an injustice to all humanity. This passage reveals that every person on earth was in communion, that everyone is wounded by Cain’s sin.

Thank you for this important point. Ten years ago, when I was writing inserts for our parish bulletin, our pastor made sure I included this point about sin since it was his observation that the full reality of sin was being ignored.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[grannymh]

.
Thank you granny for your in-depth description of the Mass and the Miracle of Transubstanciation. I attended many Masses long ago and was always impressed with the solemnity of the ceremony, I have, however never accepted Transubstanciation simply because I understood that the sacrifices carried out in Old Testament days were a “figure” of the Perfect Sacrifice that was to come. It is my understanding that a lamb without spot, or blemish was sacrificed (killed) instead of the sinner. However, the blood of the sacrifice was not drunk, but sprinkled on the altar. For this reason I have always considered that the wafer and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of our Lord, and that it is our act of partaking of these symbols that is important.
Christian regards, ALISANDRO.

I can understand your reasons for considering the wafer and wine as symbols. Because symbols connect the recepient with Jesus Christ in a personal way, they are valuable in many spiritual ways. Bringing a person back to the scenes of the Last Supper and Christ’s Passion and Death is most important as you know.

Regarding your insight about the “Lamb of God”. The one thing which amazes me when the Old Testament prefigures the New is the multiple meanings of an action or event. Sometimes I feel like I am watching a ping pong game with all the back and forth explanations.

I can see that the lamb could represent the sinner. Would you consider that the lamb was a gift offering of repentance? Would it also be a sign of attonement?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[ricmat]

.I attended many Masses long ago and was always impressed with the solemnity of the ceremony, I have, however never accepted Transubstanciation simply because I understood that the sacrifices carried out in Old Testament days were a “figure” of the Perfect Sacrifice that was to come. It is my understanding that a lamb without spot, or blemish was sacrificed (killed) instead of the sinner.

Of course, Christ IS the perfect sacrifice which was prefigured in the OT.

However, the blood of the sacrifice was not drunk, but sprinkled on the altar. For this reason I have always considered that the wafer and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of our Lord, and that it is our act of partaking of these symbols that is important.
Christian regards, ALISANDRO.

On Sinai, at the time of the covenant with Moses, the blood was also sprinkled on the people (as well as the altar). So the people received the blood, in a different way than drinking it.

But the Mass is more than just a sacrifice, it is also a marriage banquet celebrating the marriage covenant between Christ and his church. What marriage could there be without drinking wine in celebration, and as a sealing/consummation of the marriage covenant? Christ’s first miracle at Cana, and his last words on the cross (It is consummated) both point to this “wedding” of man and God.

Here is a foreshadowing of the Eucharist, both blood/wine and grain/body:

Zec 9:15-17 The LORD of hosts shall be a shield over them, they shall overcome sling stones and trample them underfoot; They shall drink blood like wine, till they are filled with it like libation bowls, like the corners of the altar. (16) And the LORD, their God, shall save them on that day, his people, like a flock. For they are the jewels in a crown raised aloft over his land. (17) For what wealth is theirs, and what beauty! grain that makes the youths flourish, and new wine, the maidens!

Here is a another foreshadowing of the Eucharist, both blood/wine and grain/body:
Joh 6:52-56 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat? (53) Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (54) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (55) For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (56) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

And here is the actual new covenant Eucharist, both blood/wine and grain/body:
Mat 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, Take and eat; this is my body. (27) Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you, (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

And if the Eucharist is symbolic only, why would Paul say the following?
1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Sorry for this long off-topic post.

 

[jcrichton]

Thomas, I don’t think science should take over the religion classroom, or the literature or history or art classrooms. Of course, science should make contributions to other disciplines where possible and useful, but it should not “take over.”

The more intractable problem you pose for a pluralistic society is which religious creation story should be privileged over which others. There was a silly controversy a few years back in a city that allowed all but one culture to set up a Christmas display. The Aztec God Quetzalcoatl – to whom hearts were sacrificed – was permitted. Only the Catholic nativity scene was excluded by mandate of the city council. As young people today would say, “That’s messed up!”

StAnastasia

…yet, it goes to Jesus’ Words:

19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. (St. John 15:19-21)

…so it is not surprising that anything anti-Christ is celebrated as “good” or “modern.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ThomasToo]

…so it is not surprising that anything anti-Christ is celebrated as “good” or “modern.”

Non-Christian is not necessarily synonymous with ‘anti-Christ.’

 

[StAnastasia]

…so it is not surprising that anything anti-Christ is celebrated as “good” or “modern.”

I’ve not heard of anti-Christian things necessarily being celebrated as modern.

 

[StAnastasia]

Internationally known evolutionary geneticist and molecular biologist and current winner of the Templeton Prize, Francisco J. Ayala describes the use of Experimental Simulated Populations in “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins”, Science; December 22, 1995, page 1932. This paper is considered a landmark and is often cited as recommended reading.

Granny, Francisco just emailed me back. He says this:

Dear XXXX:

(1) Genetically, you are right. Read my “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270:1930-1936, 1995 (see attached reprint). By the way, any previous human tens of thousands of years ago who has left descendants is an ancestor of every human being who lives today – counter intuitive as this might be. This, in turn, implies a genetic unicity of descent for all of humankind. (2) I don’t know why there would not be latitude in interpreting the Adam and Eve story in view of what I have said. But I am not in a position of authority, obviously, about this matter.

Warm regards,
Francisco

 

[buffalo]

Granny, Francisco just emailed me back. He says this:

Dear XXXX:

(1) Genetically, you are right. Read my “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270:1930-1936, 1995 (see attached reprint). By the way, any previous human tens of thousands of years ago who has left descendants is an ancestor of every human being who lives today – counter intuitive as this might be. This, in turn, implies a genetic unicity of descent for all of humankind. (2) I don’t know why there would not be latitude in interpreting the Adam and Eve story in view of what I have said. But I am not in a position of authority, obviously, about this matter.

Warm regards,
Francisco

Here is something interesting on Ayala:

On Not Reading Signature in the Cell: A Response to Francisco Ayala

No doubt it happens all the time. There must be many book reviews written by reviewers who have scarcely cracked the pages of the books they purport to review. But those who decide to write such blind reviews typically make at least some effort to acquire information about the book in question so they can describe its content accurately—if, for no other reason, than to avoid embarrassing themselves. Unfortunately, in his review of my book *Signature in the Cell *(titled ironically, “On *Reading *the Cell’s Signature”), eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala does not appear to have even made a search for the crib notes online. Indeed, from reading his review it appears that he did little more than crack the title page and table of contents—if that. As a result, his review misrepresents the thesis and topic of the book and even misstates its title.

The title of my book is not Signature of *the Cell *as Ayala repeatedly refers to it, but *Signature *in the Cell.

The thesis of the book is not that “chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms” as he claims, but instead that intelligent design *can *explain, and does provide the best explanation for (among many contenders, not just chance) the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell.

more…

 

[grannymh]

Granny, Francisco just emailed me back. He says this:

Dear XXXX:

(1) Genetically, you are right. Read my “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270:1930-1936, 1995 (see attached reprint). By the way, any previous human tens of thousands of years ago who has left descendants is an ancestor of every human being who lives today – counter intuitive as this might be. This, in turn, implies a genetic unicity of descent for all of humankind. (2) I don’t know why there would not be latitude in interpreting the Adam and Eve story in view of what I have said. But I am not in a position of authority, obviously, about this matter.

Warm regards,
Francisco

What questions did you ask your friend? Possibly you have confused me with another poster?

Obviously, the points Francisco J. Ayala refered to have nothing to do with my basic analyical position regarding the practices used in natural science research.

For those interested in Catholic history, I believe the word unicity is similar to an older word used in Catholic teaching. Since I am traveling, I do not have access to this information. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, makes a number of strong points on the issue of the unity of the human race.

For now, I will repeat the Catholic teaching that there are two sole parents of the human species.

Blessings,
granny

Human Nature is Sacred.

 

[edwest2]

I had low expectations when beginning Signature in the Cell. The hue and cry against Intelligent Design was great, but the book turned out to be a lucid explanation that I’d recommend to anyone.

It seems that the thought of a will other than the will of each individual bothers some people. Surely no outside intelligence is responsible for all this.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

The more intractable problem you pose for a pluralistic society is which religious creation story should be privileged over which others. StAnastasia

This is a good opportunity for the reminder that Catholicism is an universal religion which reaches out to the pluralistic society. This universal religion can reach out to all people because all people are united as one humanity descending from two sole parents.

 

[buffalo]

This is a good opportunity for the reminder that Catholicism is an universal religion which reaches out to the pluralistic society. This universal religion can reach out to all people because all people are united as one humanity descending from two sole parents.

Post after post you show us just how important Adam and Eve are.

 

[StAnastasia]

What questions did you ask your friend? Possibly you have confused me with another poster?

I said:

Dear Francisco,

I hope this finds you well at the end of the term. I am wrapping up things at school, as we wind down the year of the evolution across the curriculum project.

Here’s a quick question. I have had a recent interchange with some Catholics who are adamant that Adam and Eve were historical individuals from whom all humans descend. My argument – folIowing current genetic science – is that the hominid population never passed through a genetic bottleneck smaller than 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs, thus ruling out a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. What’s your own take on this both (1) genetically, and (2) with respect to how much latitude Catholics are allowed in interpreting the story?

Cordially"

 

[StAnastasia]

This is a good opportunity for the reminder that Catholicism is an universal religion which reaches out to the pluralistic society. This universal religion can reach out to all people because all people are united as one humanity descending from two sole parents.

Yes, we are united as one species, but we did not all descend from only two parents, except in the realm of mythology.

 

[redneck22]

Granny, Francisco just emailed me back. He says this:

Dear XXXX:

(1) Genetically, you are right. Read my “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270:1930-1936, 1995 (see attached reprint). By the way, any previous human tens of thousands of years ago who has left descendants is an ancestor of every human being who lives today – counter intuitive as this might be.

His research is based on the foundational belief that the history of human origins is found in the divergence of chimps and humans from a “common ancestor” about 5,000,000 years ago. Unfortunately from what is known in genetic science this is extremely unlikely.

It is known that there are at least 100 million mutations that separate human DNA from chimp DNA. How could you get 100 million mutations to sweep through the **whole human population **in only 5 million years?

Suppose that today I acquire a beneficial mutation that can be passed on to my children. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to sweep through the whole human race? Think about it, this mutation would have to be SO beneficial, that MY descendants will out compete the descendants of everybody else in the world, so that eventually everyone in the world is one of MY descendants. How many years would that take? And that is just to add ONE beneficial mutation to the human genome

Seems like it might take 5 million years just to sweep one mutation through the human population. It would take a shorter time for a sweep if the human population was smaller (say 10,000 individuals), but it would still probably take many many thousands of years for ONE mutation to sweep through the population. To get 100 million mutations in 5 million years, you would have to sweep 20 mutations through the population EVERY YEAR! That’s not possible

This, in turn, implies a genetic unicity of descent for all of humankind. (2) I don’t know why there would not be latitude in interpreting the Adam and Eve story in view of what I have said.

No latitude is required since it is not a story but HIStory.

 

[buffalo]

His research is based on the foundational belief that the history of human origins is found in the divergence of chimps and humans from a “common ancestor” about 5,000,000 years ago. Unfortunately from what is known in genetic science this is extremely unlikely.

It is known that there are at least 100 million mutations that separate human DNA from chimp DNA. How could you get 100 million mutations to sweep through the **whole human population **in only 5 million years?

Suppose that today I acquire a beneficial mutation that can be passed on to my children. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to sweep through the whole human race? Think about it, this mutation would have to be SO beneficial, that MY descendants will out compete the descendants of everybody else in the world, so that eventually everyone in the world is one of MY descendants. How many years would that take? And that is just to add ONE beneficial mutation to the human genome

Seems like it might take 5 million years just to sweep one mutation through the human population. It would take a shorter time for a sweep if the human population was smaller (say 10,000 individuals), but it would still probably take many many thousands of years for ONE mutation to sweep through the population. To get 100 million mutations in 5 million years, you would have to sweep 20 mutations through the population EVERY YEAR! That’s not possible

No latitude is required since it is not a story but HIStory.

A few of the “smart” evos are starting to get the picture.

What we now know - DNA fights against mutations. It operates sort of like a parity bit in communications and makes several attempts to correct. This makes the odds astounding that mutations are responsible for the changes as well as the speed of change.

 

[grannymh]

I said:

Dear Francisco,

I hope this finds you well at the end of the term. I am wrapping up things at school, as we wind down the year of the evolution across the curriculum project.

Here’s a quick question. I have had a recent interchange with some Catholics who are adamant that Adam and Eve were historical individuals from whom all humans descend. My argument – folIowing current genetic science – is that the hominid population never passed through a genetic bottleneck smaller than 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs, thus ruling out a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. What’s your own take on this both (1) genetically, and (2) with respect to how much latitude Catholics are allowed in interpreting the story?

Cordially"

In the field of genetics, Experimental Simulated Populations are used to predict the pattern of individual genomic samplings backwards millions of years. StAnastasia, please refer to pages 1932 and following of the paper your friend kindly sent you. Unfortunately, in respect of the current ban, I am not able to discuss the details in particular.

However, I will continue to maintain that from an analytical point of view, scientific research cannot rule out two sole parents of the human species.

For example, in another research project, the relevant results were found in 4 out of 120 individuals. With current GenBank, I am sure that more than 120 genomic samplings can be studied, but it is still unreasonable to extrapolate from conclusions regarding a fraction of the current total human population and past human populations backwards millions and millions of years, including assumptions and speculations, to an universal statement regarding the origin of what has been referred to as the extant species of the family Hominidae.

In other words, significant research by your friends, can be as valid as sunshine. Whether or not this research can validly predict backwards millions and millions of years is totally questionable. Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species exists. Think apples and oranges.

Blessings,
granny

Human Nature Is Sacred

 

[StrawberryJam]

In the field of genetics, Experimental Simulated Populations are used to predict the pattern of individual genomic samplings backwards millions of years. StAnastasia, please refer to pages 1932 and following of the paper your friend kindly sent you. Unfortunately, in respect of the current ban, I am not able to discuss the details in particular.

However, I will continue to maintain that from an analytical point of view, scientific research cannot rule out two sole parents of the human species.

For example, in another research project, the relevant results were found in 4 out of 120 individuals. With current GenBank, I am sure that more than 120 genomic samplings can be studied, but it is still unreasonable to extrapolate from conclusions regarding a fraction of the current total human population and past human populations backwards millions and millions of years, including assumptions and speculations, to an universal statement regarding the origin of what has been referred to as the extant species of the family Hominidae.

In other words, significant research by your friends, can be as valid as sunshine. Whether or not this research can validly predict backwards millions and millions of years is totally questionable. Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species exists. Think apples and oranges.

Blessings,
granny

Human Nature Is Sacred

I vote the thread be closed since in order to argue this idea one must violate a current ban that is “temporary” in scope.

This discussion can not go anywhere from here on any side as long as the ban is in place.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, we are united as one species, but we did not all descend from only two parents, except in the realm of mythology.

Ah, one says. All those wonderful posts about mythology across the earth.

And what exactly is it that unites humanity as one species?

Catholic teaching is that it is the spiritual, rational soul which places humanity at the pinnacle of God’s creation. The spiritual soul is the characteristic or distinguishing mark of the human nature. Since there is only one and only one human nature, it had to be procreated from the one set of parents who possessed the same human nature because that insures the unity of the current human species that has existed since the beginning.

Our spiritual, rational, immaterial, eternal, immortal soul unites us as one distinct, unique species called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life.

Amazing!

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm