S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s a very interesting series, which I’m going to encourage my son to read.
- Status
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Sulkow,
I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but this post appears to manifest repeated lacuna/s which are likely to persist.
Given the teaching importance of an encyclical, one needs to be careful to discern why the Pope would make a contingent statement vs. an absolute one.
(IMHO) Polygenism is independent of explanations which obey church requirements, that is: Polygenism can be formulated with or without respect to biblical obedience. Most atheists use the “promordial Adam” and “primordial Eve” to reduce religious/faith understanding to a formula devoid of a willing God. Historically, the philosophy of Marxism attempts to reduce “God” to an impersonal formula strategically as well – eg:something scientific and impersonal and exploitable as predicted by formulaic law.
Polygenism does not restrict itself to the theory that these composite “Adam’s” and composite “Eve’s” all disobeyed.
Genesis focuses on the un-fitting-ness for a mere animal to be the mate of man. God saw that it was not Good for man to be alone AND Adam rejected mere animals as a mate, in contrast to later men who would worship animals as “Gods” (cf. the Golden calf who brought “you” out of Egypt.) The man who is in friendship with God is also the man who sees the difference between God and animal; the man who is not in friendship with God is the one who enters into perverted sexual relations on account of an animal. Adam had already shown his understanding of the law in rejecting the animals as his sexual partner
.
Polygenism of a mere animalS evolving into man flies directly against Adam’s exposition of God’s law – the inspired man would not willingly choose an animal as an equal mate.
I think that is where Grannymh got derailed…
Peace, and I hope this gives you something to consider…
–Andrew.
God be with you.
sulkow82
I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but this post appears to manifest repeated lacuna/s which are likely to persist.
You are agreeing with the at least disciplinary teaching of the Catholic church here; but note the pope said “It is nowise apparent” in the English translation. eg: The encyclical teaching is not guaranteed absolute, but rather contingent on a better explanation (AFAIK).
Given the teaching importance of an encyclical, one needs to be careful to discern why the Pope would make a contingent statement vs. an absolute one.
(IMHO) Polygenism is independent of explanations which obey church requirements, that is: Polygenism can be formulated with or without respect to biblical obedience. Most atheists use the “promordial Adam” and “primordial Eve” to reduce religious/faith understanding to a formula devoid of a willing God. Historically, the philosophy of Marxism attempts to reduce “God” to an impersonal formula strategically as well – eg:something scientific and impersonal and exploitable as predicted by formulaic law.
Polygenism does not restrict itself to the theory that these composite “Adam’s” and composite “Eve’s” all disobeyed.
The book of Tobit adds the statement, that humans are descended from that first *couple *Adam and Eve in agreement with your comment here.
hmmm … the native Americans “developed in the Americas”; you mean a specific theory ??
Correct; and incomplete; Within one being – man – the Spirit is the soul principle. eg:Man has a *Spiritual soul, *not merely an animal one.
Genesis focuses on the un-fitting-ness for a mere animal to be the mate of man. God saw that it was not Good for man to be alone AND Adam rejected mere animals as a mate, in contrast to later men who would worship animals as “Gods” (cf. the Golden calf who brought “you” out of Egypt.) The man who is in friendship with God is also the man who sees the difference between God and animal; the man who is not in friendship with God is the one who enters into perverted sexual relations on account of an animal. Adam had already shown his understanding of the law in rejecting the animals as his sexual partner
.
Polygenism of a mere animalS evolving into man flies directly against Adam’s exposition of God’s law – the inspired man would not willingly choose an animal as an equal mate.
But, you also stated something to the effect of “church teaching” and “Euphraties”???
I think that is where Grannymh got derailed…
That is acceptable (AFAIK). I don’t think, however, that it is necessary to hold that they were members of a larger community – nor that they both had to sin in order for the sin to carry down to all their descendants.
Still OK, but especially without the “thus” by anyone.
Right, but they don’t pass the immortal souls down to their offspring. It is the body which is passed down imperfectly. That is mutations, the second death (but not procreative death of a seed), as parts of sickness and wounding were not part (communion) of the original body given to man when his soul was granted a spiritual nature. The crux of the issue is that original sin is according to the flesh, for the spirit is created anew for each man/woman at conception. The spirit comes from God and returns to him – the flesh, on the other-hand comes from dust and returns to it. The association between dust, death, and the serpent have historical/linguistic aspects. In virtually every culture, the fertility and sin aspects of the serpent are well known. It shows up as a golden phallus in Egyptian culture, for example, and non-poisonous snakes were used in fertility rituals in Greek, Babylonian, and other cultures, etc. So much so, that I understand the serpent in Genesis to be more than just an animal – but an expression of the degeneracy of man toward bestiality in sexuality which arrived with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.
Peace, and I hope this gives you something to consider…
–Andrew.
God be with you.
sulkow82
G
grannymh
Guest
You have indeed given me lots of things to consider starting with the word lacuna.
And what does AFAIK stand for, please? I have a mental block when it comes to initials and phone numbers.
To begin. What, how, why, and from where did I get derailed?
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55
G
grannymh
Guest
Regardless of how polygenism is formulated in regard to Original Sin, monogenism is the clear Catholic teaching because the status of human nature is a matter of Divine Revelation which is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
While encyclicals are explanations of Catholic teaching, natural science issues must be read in context as to what is a matter of faith and morals and what are free, independent opinions. There are times when science and faith intersect and individuals, including high ranking clergy, do grapple with the issues. Nonetheless, Divine Revelation trumps.
Blessings,
granny
Basic 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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
R
redneck22
Guest
Well if I have said anything wrong or untrue then correct me, show me what is “true”. You don’t need to be smart to win an argument, you just need to be right.
F
fnr
Guest
Granny,
Statements of faith are not necessarily statements of fact. I think it’s unclear how much monogenism is a doctrine of historical fact (though when mid-20th Century popes talked about it, it was in this context), as opposed to one of doctrinal understanding.
The latest statement on evolution of which I’m aware is the International Theological Commission’s document, Communion and Stewardship.
…most exegetes today acknowledge … the imago Dei is central to biblical revelation … seen as the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to … affirmations of biblical anthropology … For the Bible, the imago Dei constitutes almost a definition of man: the mystery of man cannot be grasped apart from the mystery of God.
It addresses the first humans:
…the creation accounts in Genesis make it clear that man is not created as an isolated individual: “God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). God placed the first human beings in relation to one another, each with a partner of the other sex … man exists in relation with other persons, with God, with the world, and with himself … not an isolated individual but a person – an essentially relational being … the fundamentally relational character of the imago Dei itself constitutes its ontological structure and the basis for its … freedom and responsibility.
It mentions the first humans, “each with a partner of the other sex.” One might shoehorn this language into meaning “Adam and Eve,” but it can be read as “multiple.”
Here’s more to indicate that Gen. 2 should be read figuratively:
In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.
It recognizes very large implications for what this means for human culture.
Without denying the gift of man’s original creation in the image of God, theologians want to acknowledge the truth that, in the light of human history and the evolution of human culture, the imago Dei can in a real sense be said to be still in the process of becoming.
Whoa! That’s a theologically significant statement! The “symbol” of humanity in union with God – Adam – is apparently more a ultimate goal of human culture, through Christ, than a history of humanity.
Human beings are oriented to the kingdom of Christ as to an absolute future, the consummation of human existence.
It still notes the historical nature of sin affecting all human culture:
The witness of Scripture (cf. Rom. 5:12ff) presents us with a vision of the history of sin, caused by a rejection of the divine invitation to communion which occurred at the beginning of the history of the human race.
Note its ginger reference to the vision of history, not to history in scripture. This seems to reorient the idea of original sin (as I’ve understood it):
The human person, created in the image of God, is ordered by nature to the enjoyment of divine love, but only divine grace makes the free embrace of this love possible and effective.
This text on human origins is followed by a description of human stewardship and how science and faith interplay:
According to … accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in … the “Big Bang” … expanding and cooling ever since … there gradually emerged the conditions … for the formation of atoms … later the condensation of galaxies and stars, … later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to … life. … there is general agreement … the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. …all living organisms … are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence … furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life … controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. …physical anthropology and molecular biology … make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. …the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in … homo sapiens. With the … human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were … altered: with … uniquely human … consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of which the plural form is “lacunae,” not “lacunas.”
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding Post 995
The short answer is that one starts with the Catholic Deposit of Faith if one wants to be a faithful Catholic.
All of post 995 must be read in the context of Catholic Doctrines. One should not isolate certain sentences, like some of post 995, from both the context of the particular paper and the context of all of Divine Revelation.
The sad thing about the current attempt to downplay the significance of the relationship of the first human aka Adam to God is that one looses basic Catholic truths like original sin and the purpose of Jesus Christ. To reorient the idea of original sin doesn’t fly. Neither does some vague references to some truth of symbolism.
Yes, I am well aware of the so-called catholic movement to change doctrines of the Catholic Church. Some of post 995 reflects part of the movement’s familiar chant heard in many posts. Some of post 995 is a good example of poor catechesis and lack of understanding of Holy Scripture.
If this thread is open when I return, I will do my best to present authentic Catholic teaching.
Blessings,
granny
Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam, His relationship to God, and Original Sin **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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
The short answer is that one starts with the Catholic Deposit of Faith if one wants to be a faithful Catholic.
All of post 995 must be read in the context of Catholic Doctrines. One should not isolate certain sentences, like some of post 995, from both the context of the particular paper and the context of all of Divine Revelation.
The sad thing about the current attempt to downplay the significance of the relationship of the first human aka Adam to God is that one looses basic Catholic truths like original sin and the purpose of Jesus Christ. To reorient the idea of original sin doesn’t fly. Neither does some vague references to some truth of symbolism.
Yes, I am well aware of the so-called catholic movement to change doctrines of the Catholic Church. Some of post 995 reflects part of the movement’s familiar chant heard in many posts. Some of post 995 is a good example of poor catechesis and lack of understanding of Holy Scripture.
If this thread is open when I return, I will do my best to present authentic Catholic teaching.
Blessings,
granny
Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam, His relationship to God, and Original Sin **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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
E
edwest2
Guest
That statement is incomplete. There is the question of the ontological leap to man, the answer to which cannot be found in science. I am tired of attempts to turn things into symbols as opposed to facts. There were two individuals. They sinned. That Original Sin is passed on to all their descendants.
God bless,
Ed
T
tjm190
Guest
And what do you have that backs up the claim that we all descend from two human ancestors?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Faith alone. He has no scientific support for this belief.
R
ricmat
Guest
Sort of like the situation with God.
Do you teach your students to require scientific support for belief in God?
G
grannymh
Guest
Since this sentence is wide open for interpretation, I will restate it from the Catholic point of view. Catholic doctrines are considered statements of faith or morals. These statements are statements of facts of Divine Revelation. How can Divine Revelation be anything but fact?
From the Catholic point of view, the actual doctrine is that there are two, sole first parents of the human species. Monogenism is a descriptive term for the human race descending exclusively from one couple.
The phrase “as opposed to one of doctrinal understanding” does not have any real meaning unless this “doctrinal understanding” is stated. This is why it is best to refer to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, for authentic Catholic teaching.
The following snippets from Communion and Stewardship should be compared with the actual text. It is also suggested to read the very end of this paper.
The following snippet is a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
This is is a good example of drawing attention away from Catholic teaching to the writer’s own agenda. See the word symbol. See the word symbol underscored which indicates that the whole of chapter 2 should be read figuratively without any reference to Divine Revelation as held by the Catholic Church.
Catholicism does teach the unity of humanity which can only come about because all humans descended from one real couple. That is the only way everyone can have the unity of the same human nature.The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, has a lot to say about unity. Yet, not once does it say that you and I came from a symbol. If we exist historically with our birth certificate as evidence, than our human nature ancestors had to exist historically – meaning at a moment in time.
In fairness to Biblical scholarship, a real person can also serve as a symbol. This does not mean that a real person is a symbol. Did Jesus die for symbols?
Say what?
To be continued.
G
grannymh
Guest
Continued from post1002
Blessings,
granny
Basic 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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
Whoa! And what is the soul? This is what the Catholic Church says about “in the image of God”. In man’s own nature, God unites the spiritual and material worlds. The human person, alone, is called to share by knowledge and love in God’s own life. How can created man share in His Creator’s own life? Because created man, spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, material body and spiritual soul, is created in the image of God.
No reorientation here since Romans 5:12-21. are cited for the Catholic teaching of original sin as found in the Catechism.
Frankly, I’m baffled by this statement which contains a Catholic interpretation of divine grace but there seems to be a lot of Catholic teaching missing, like the functions of intellect and will, along with the wounded human nature.
The above is a scientific report. It should be compared with the Catechism and with the general mission of Catholicism.
Blessings,
granny
Basic 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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have the teaching authority of the Catholic Church which says that there were two, real, sole parents of the human species.
G
grannymh
Guest
Faith in Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church is all that is necessary.
B
buffalo
Guest
The clear teaching of the Church is that Adam and Eve were real people, we all are descendants, and they committed a real act.
Anyone who disagrees produce a Magisterial document that denounces with clarity the contrary.
Anyone who disagrees produce a Magisterial document that denounces with clarity the contrary.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble opinion, we humans have grown so proud of our technological and scientific accomplishments that we think everything worthwhile is material. We have let trust in the spiritual die in our hearts. Consequently, we have lost sight of the deep meanings in Genesis’ account of Adam and Eve*.* We have lost the skill of discerning both the symbolic and the real in Genesis’ account of God, Adam and Original Sin. We depend on our own wishes and not on Catholic teaching. We have lost sight of what it means to be in God’s friendship. Ignoring the reality of Adam, we make his mistakes.
What makes us afraid to meet the real Adam as he truly is?
Blessings,
granny
Genesis 1: 24-31
What makes us afraid to meet the real Adam as he truly is?
Blessings,
granny
Genesis 1: 24-31
T
tjm190
Guest
So we are to ignore those who are experts in the field, including those many Christians, who claim that the idea that there were two humans that we are descended from is preposterous?
- Status