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

[Wesrock]

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.

Clear papal statements on ‘musts’ of faith aren’t infallible?

 

[buffalo]

III. 6 We come now to the final magisterial intervention to be considered in this part of our study, namely, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909, on the interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1 to 3. The main point of this document that interests us is the third question addressed by the Commission:
Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).**30

rtforum.org/lt/lt97.html
**

 

[Wesrock]

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.

Part remains a mystery, but not monogeny in regards to true men and original sin.

 

[grannymh]

What is the mystery of Mortal Sin?

The Original Sin happens to be the first Mortal Sin. So what is the problem?

Mortal Sin is the freely intellective choice to reject God. This is done through disobedience. Flat out murder violates one of the Ten Commandments and is an example of disobedience.

From CCC Glossary, page 889. Mortal Sin is a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. …

There is no mystery about Original Sin in the first three information chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 1:27
Genesis 2: 15-17
Genesis 3:11

 

[Wesrock]

I just meant in regards to reconciling the facts of faith of our origins with the sciences. The facts of faith are non-negotiable, of course, but I don’t see the current science as irreconcilable with them, either.

 

[buffalo]

I just meant in regards to reconciling the facts of faith of our origins with the sciences. The facts of faith are non-negotiable, of course, but I don’t see the current science as irreconcilable with them, either.

A few years ago science proclaimed a genetic Adam and Eve that we are all descended from. They claimed they lived several hundred thousand years apart. Recently science said they were contemporaries but did not know each other. Next thing you know they will say they were from the same village.

 

[Tim_D]

Clear papal statements on ‘musts’ of faith aren’t infallible?

Infallible statements of the Church involve morals and doctrine. There have only been 2 occasions when a pope has specifically pronounced an infallible doctrine; that for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There are magisterial teachings declared by councils that are regarded as “infallible,” even though the concept back then was not defined as it eventually was at the Vatican 1 council, but there has never been an “infallible” declaration by the Church that we must give intellectual ascent to the idea that the story of Adam & Eve as told in Genesis as literal and historical or that we must subscribe to the concept of human origins and the diaspora of humanity as described in Genesis is literal, historical and accurate, anymore than we are required to believe that the Nephilim were the children of angels and mankind or that Noah’s ark was a literal and historical event.

 

[buffalo]

Infallible statements of the Church involve morals and doctrine. There have only been 2 occasions when a pope has specifically pronounced an infallible doctrine; that for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There are magisterial teachings declared by councils that are regarded as “infallible,” even though the concept back then was not defined as it eventually was at the Vatican 1 council, but there has never been an “infallible” declaration by the Church that we must give intellectual ascent to the idea that the story of Adam & Eve as told in Genesis as literal and historical or that we must subscribe to the concept of human origins and the diaspora of humanity as described in Genesis is literal, historical and accurate, anymore than we are required to believe that the Nephilim were the children of angels and mankind or that Noah’s ark was a literal and historical event.

Constant Catholic teaching affirmed a historical Adam and Eve until recently? The PBC answered this over 100 years ago as a reaction to Darwinism. What changed?

 

[Wesrock]

Infallible statements of the Church involve morals and doctrine. There have only been 2 occasions when a pope has specifically pronounced an infallible doctrine; that for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There are magisterial teachings declared by councils that are regarded as “infallible,” even though the concept back then was not defined as it eventually was at the Vatican 1 council, but there has never been an “infallible” declaration by the Church that we must give intellectual ascent to the idea that the story of Adam & Eve as told in Genesis as literal and historical or that we must subscribe to the concept of human origins and the diaspora of humanity as described in Genesis is literal, historical and accurate, anymore than we are required to believe that the Nephilim were the children of angels and mankind or that Noah’s ark was a literal and historical event.

I feel that you are understanding historical and literal at least a little different than I am.

 

[Tim_D]

III. 6 We come now to the final magisterial intervention to be considered in this part of our study, namely, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909, on the interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1 to 3. The main point of this document that interests us is the third question addressed by the Commission:
Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).30

rtforum.org/lt/lt97.html

And? Nothing in there is a negation of the position that the story of Adam & Eve in the opening chapters of Genesis isn’t literally and historical “true.” It simply restates what the Church has taught all along.

 

[grannymh]

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.

What is declared infallible by major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the promise Advocate are the actual defined and duly declared Catholic doctrines based on God’s Divine Revelation.

Please, do not confuse the account of the creation with the actual Catholic doctrines. Please do not confuse literal with the actual Catholic doctrines. Normally, we understand some basic fundamental doctrines of Catholicism as flowing or coming from the first three powerful chapters of Sacred Scripture. How this works is found in the CCC Index of Citations starting on page 689.

Please, anyone,

try to slowly read the first three sacred chapters in Genesis. Then, if you have questions, I will do my best to answer.

 

[grannymh]

I feel that you are understanding historical and literal at least a little different than I am.

One can skip the messy historical and literal and go directly to the heart of the matter.
If one is interested in Catholicism, then one finds its common sense basic teachings about the dawn of human history and matches them to the appropriate verses in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis.

 

[Tim_D]

Please, do not confuse the account of the creation with the actual Catholic doctrines.

It would seem that I am NOT the one here doing such a thing.

Also, why do you speak in riddles?

 

[buffalo]

So far we have Scripture as witness, Tradition as witness and science as witness.

 

[grannymh]

I keep hearing about the “Story of Adam and Eve.”

I sure would like to hear what exactly is in the “Story of Adam and Eve.”
I would like to hear something beyond the children’s story where leaves are appropriately placed.

 

[Tim_D]

I sure would like to hear what exactly is in the “Story of Adam and Eve.”

Seriously? Aren’t you the one who goes on and on about the first three “exciting” chapters of Genesis?

Are you suggesting that there is something more to them than what we find in Genesis?

 

[Tim_D]

Constant Catholic teaching affirmed a historical Adam and Eve until recently? The PBC answered this over 100 years ago as a reaction to Darwinism. What changed?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[buffalo]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have established Scripture and Tradition as affirming Adam and Eve for roughly 2000 years of the Church and further back in Judaism. What changed as to why you don’t?

 

[grannymh]

Seriously? Aren’t you the one who goes on and on about the first three “exciting” chapters of Genesis?

Are you suggesting that there is something more to them than what we find in Genesis?

I have provided a few verses from the first three exciting chapters of Genesis. Post 63.

My apology if I missed one of your posts.

What verses from the first three exciting chapters of Genesis can you provide?
Or what do you think about some verses? Do any lead to a Catholic doctrine?

Obviously, Genesis 1:1 is an important Catholic doctrine. From there, one can understand the human nature God created Genesis 1:27 and understand the difficulty that there cannot be two equal primary gods at the same time. Thus, Genesis 2:15-17 is necessary.

I do go on and on and on and on about the first three chapters of Genes, because I hope that someone will actually read them to find out what happened at the beginning of human history.

But, if you are bothered by reading, I can stop. I have said enough. If someone has a specific question about an actual verse in the real first three chapters of Genesis, I will do my best to answer.

 

[grannymh]

I just meant in regards to reconciling the facts of faith of our origins with the sciences. The facts of faith are non-negotiable, of course, but I don’t see the current science as irreconcilable with them, either.

Unfortunately, the current Science of Human Evolution does not allow an originating population of two.

The Science of Human Evolution usually begins with the Homo/Pan divergence or speciation event which results in separate large populations evolving into new random breeding populations over time. The Science of Human Evolution based on indiscriminate large populations is not the same as an immediate appearance of two real fully-complete human persons lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07