"Neanderthals were People too" -- what are the implications for faith?

[catholic1seeks]

Really? Which creed declares that? What dogmatic declaration binds us to such a broad and general matter of faith in which we "must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman?" What is the penalty for not accepting such a general, run of the mill statement?

The doctrine of original sin, and therefore the redemption of Christ, rests upon it. It is of Catholic belief that original sin corresponds to a real even in the life of the first true man and woman, and that we have all descended from this pair… or at least have all received the effects of original sin from them.

Christ is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve… so again, the redemption is based on this historic understanding

 

[grannymh]

I have not read the entire thing, but this article from New York Times Magazine suggests that science has long gotten Neanderthals wrong, and that they displayed many behavioral characteristics that were similar to their Homo sapien neighbors in Africa. Note that the last common ancestor with neanderthals was over 500,000 years ago. But anyway, they too, apparently, buried their dead and made specialized tools and jewelry. They also painted their faces or bodies, which could represent symbolic thought.

Personally, human evolution has never really threatened my faith. I have always been open to science, and I think evolutionary biology expresses the creative work of God.

However, I wonder how this understanding of Neanderthals can be consistent with the uniqueness of the human person, who is not just body but soul as well. From the time of our “first parents,” we bodily creatures also have a spiritual aspect, made in the image of God, and can relate to God. Features such as self-consciousness and symbolic thought were thought to be particular attributes of humans made in God’s image, with an immortal soul.

So how this square with Catholic teaching?

You are right about our spiritual aspect ,Genesis 1:27. This will always differentiate humans from all other creatures.

However, there is a difference between the Science of Human Evolution (species evolving as large populations) and the Catholic teaching that all humankind descended from an originating population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve. Considering the rapid increase of true humans who migrated away from home, Neanderthals, body and soul, could have been true humans. In that case, Neanderthals would not be part of evolution science. It is the evolution model, per se, which contradicts Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

Really? Which creed declares that? What dogmatic declaration binds us to such a broad and general matter of faith in which we "must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman?" What is the penalty for not accepting such a general, run of the mill statement?

Clarification. The historical event known as Original Sin was between the Creator God and the first human creature Adam.

As for penalties – the concept that Jesus Christ is simply a great human prophet among other great human prophets.

Because the original relationship between humanity and Divinity was actually established by the Creator God, Genesis 1:27, and Adam was not equal to Divinity — guess what! A Divine Person was needed to repair the original relationship. John 3: 16-17.

 

[Tim_D]

The doctrine of original sin, and therefore the redemption of Christ, rests upon it. It is of Catholic belief that original sin corresponds to a real even in the life of the first true man and woman, and that we have all descended from this pair… or at least have all received the effects of original sin from them.

Nevertheless, it is not required that “we must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman.” None of the great creeds of the Church “require” it, nor are we obligated to ascend intellectually to it. Original sin is a mystery. That we are “descended from this pair” simply means that we are rational beings with immortal souls like our first “parents.” Genesis is a book of spiritual truths, not a scientific textbook. The story of Adam and Eve is just the ancient authors way of trying to describe our state of original sin.

 

[buffalo]

Nevertheless, it is not required that “we must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman.” None of the great creeds of the Church “require” it, nor are we obligated to ascend intellectually to it. Original sin is a mystery. That we are “descended from this pair” simply means that we are rational beings with immortal souls like our first “parents.” Genesis is a book of spiritual truths, not a scientific textbook. The story of Adam and Eve is just the ancient authors way of trying to describe our state of original sin.

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II

 

[buffalo]

Nevertheless, it is not required that “we must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman.” None of the great creeds of the Church “require” it, nor are we obligated to ascend intellectually to it. Original sin is a mystery. That we are “descended from this pair” simply means that we are rational beings with immortal souls like our first “parents.” Genesis is a book of spiritual truths, not a scientific textbook. The story of Adam and Eve is just the ancient authors way of trying to describe our state of original sin.

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

 

[Tim_D]

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Page not found.

In any event, the Church does not teach a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. The fact that you found a philosopher who does really doesn’t mean anything.

 

[Tim_D]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS? - A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II

"I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true;"

The Church does not teach any such thing. This is the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[grannymh]

Nevertheless, it is not required that “we must believe in a historical event between the first two true humans who were man and woman.” None of the great creeds of the Church “require” it, nor are we obligated to ascend intellectually to it. Original sin is a mystery. That we are “descended from this pair” simply means that we are rational beings with immortal souls like our first “parents.” Genesis is a book of spiritual truths, not a scientific textbook. The story of Adam and Eve is just the ancient authors way of trying to describe our state of original sin.

Clarification from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The historical event known as Original Sin was between the Creator God and the first human creature Adam. Not between the first two true humans who were man and woman. Did I read that wrong?

Please, now that the Creator God is involved at the time of the Original Sin, what is your description of the State of Original Sin? You do not need to worry about the “mystery” of Original Sin. Please, would you just give the facts as you know them?

Thank you.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[mVitus]

Here’s an excerpt from Pope Pius XXII’s Humani Generis

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]

Full document: w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

So while there’s reason to debate whether or not A&E were pre-homo sapiens and search for any authoritative answers on that question of whether or not that’s possible, we must hold A&E as the original two humans from whom all are descended. And personally, I’m hoping to find an authoritative answer that says we can take that route of personal conviction because pushing them further back helps explain more in line with general scientific understanding.

 

[buffalo]

Page not found.

In any event, the Church does not teach a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. The fact that you found a philosopher who does really doesn’t mean anything.

I will have to check the link:

There are others here.

 

[buffalo]

"I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true;"

The Church does not teach any such thing. This is the sound of one hand clapping.

Read further…

 

[grannymh]

Page not found.

In any event, the Church does not teach a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. The fact that you found a philosopher who does really doesn’t mean anything.

Links to articles by Dr. Dennis Bonnette. He is the author in the post 46 link.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5244649

Book
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Bonnette/dp/1932589686

Website
drbonnette.com/

 

[Tim_D]

Read further…

Thank you but no.

When one person takes it upon themselves to state that something was declared “infallibly” when even the Church doesn’t state as much makes me think that they are too involved.

 

[Wesrock]

Page not found.

In any event, the Church does not teach a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. The fact that you found a philosopher who does really doesn’t mean anything.

You go too far in your allegory. The Church teaches that the account of the fall of man is real history, but allows that it may be told in a figurative or mythological style.

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.264 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.265

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII states:

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]

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] **This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, **which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

1. **Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, **which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

The Marian dogmas are not all enshrined within creeds either, do you therefore reject them? What of its teaching on birth control in Humane Vitae?

I used to take a broader opinion of the allegorical nature of the fall of man, too. But that was wrong of me. I came to understand I went too far. There were two first parents of true humanity. This doesn’t mean all of our physical genetic diversity comes from them, but everyone with rational souls are descended from them two, and we all inherited the consequences of original sin from them.

Don’t get me wrong, I think buffalo and edwest have vastly different opinions than me on the validity of evolutionary science and history , but we’re in agreement that you go too far

 

[grannymh]

Here’s an excerpt from Pope Pius XXII’s Humani Generis

Full document: w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

So while there’s reason to debate whether or not A&E were pre-homo sapiens and search for any authoritative answers on that question of whether or not that’s possible, we must hold A&E as the original two humans from whom all are descended. And personally, I’m hoping to find an authoritative answer that says we can take that route of personal conviction because pushing them further back helps explain more in line with general scientific understanding.

A better way to read Humani

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you but no.

When one person takes it upon themselves to state that something was declared “infallibly” when even the Church doesn’t state as much makes me think that they are too involved.

It’s been stated by Popes. It’s stated in the Catholic Answer tracks. It’s stated elsewhere. The Church rejects polygeny, at least in regards to being true man and original sin.

 

[Tim_D]

Don’t get me wrong, I think buffalo and edwest have vastly different opinions than me on the validity of evolutionary science and history , but we’re in agreement that you go too far

So? It is a mystery, like the Real Presence. I don’t pretend to understand it all. I simply find it odd that so many here think they do.

 

[Tim_D]

It’s been stated by Popes. It’s stated in the Catholic Answer tracks. It’s stated elsewhere. The Church rejects polygeny, at least in regards to being true man and original sin.

The Church has never declared “infallibly” that the account of the creation of Adam & Eve and the fall is a literal, historical event. That was the point of the linked article suggesting as much.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you but no.

When one person takes it upon themselves to state that something was declared “infallibly” when even the Church doesn’t state as much makes me think that they are too involved.

This one person has assembled the many documents of the Church. It is not about him.