J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I’m sorry, what has “God’s purpose” got to do with whether humanity arises monogentically or polygenetically? How did you get to anyone denying that and are you accusing the Pope of heresy?
- Status
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
How about if you share any evidence whatsoever outside of a story the Church has declared is written in figurative language that there were?
B
buffalo
Guest
The question stands to faith1960.
I have - many many times. Look at the definition of IDvolution. Look at the sceince resources that support it. Open your mind. The figurative language part does not invalidate the historical Adam and Eve. It refers to the tree of knowledge, the tree of life, the garden, the serpent etc. Now, what is the constant Catholic teaching and understanding regarding these?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
It does? Who said that? I mean, what Vatican document can you link us that says : every other element is a metaphor but Adam and Eve. As far as I can see, the Church is deliberately vague on the specifics, so you are not relaying any Chruch teaching, but your own belief. And that’s fine. The Church is fine with a literalist interpretation as long as you aren’t trying to replace Church teaching with your own, and going beyond what is taught. So, believe it. But I think trying to make others believe what you believe is far beyond the scope of what the Church is saying.
You realize all your sources are Protestant sola scriptura sources, right? You are at least supplementing Church teaching with the teaching of heretics. You may be replacing it, because I guarantee you the Church never said a thing about the other elements all being figurative and the people literal.
P
Petergee
Guest
I already gave you human examples, I just used the dog example to show you the general principles. All domestic dogs are the one species just as all humans are the one species. You have provided no source evidence for your scientifically preposterous claim that a woman from a short race cannot give birth to the child of a man from a tall race.
It’s relevant to your claim that the crossbreeds are less healthy. The exact opposite of what we find in fact.
I assume nothing. I said “**If **…” as you have just quoted me.
I understand perfectly what you mean by sexual selection. I have a major in biology.
I’m not confused (and if I were in your position I would try not to attempt to intellectually patronise people) but you seem to be trying to be obfuscatory.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Because that’s the implication of your assertion. If the human person is really just a spirit, then immortality is a natural phenomenon rather than a grace, and the Fall from original justice did not corrupt the nature–it merely gained it a body.
Your position is unorthodox, and I’m entertaining it in order to dismantle it, how’s that?
You have yet to explain how the angelic nature is different than human nature.
Revelation 12:3-9
I don’t suppose it matters, but I thought I’d add it to see how you react. It’s funny how you defend your own hypotheticals that have no positive reference as a system, yet you are quick to only accept incredibly specific information as something true.
B
buffalo
Guest
Protestanst sources? Oh my. Which one of these is Protestant?
Again -
- God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I) - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
- Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
- The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
- The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
- Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
- Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
- After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
- Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
- The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
- We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis) - Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
G
grannymh
Guest
Semantics is definitely a problem for most people, including myself. In addition, one has to pay close attention to the wording and then check the wording with other CCC paragraphs.
I found CCC 390 very difficult until I matched it with the CCC paragraphs listed in post 26 above.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10188376&postcount=26
The author I am working with gave me the key which opened up the deeper meaning of CCC 390. For me, that key was Romans 5: 12-21. This same passage is referenced in #37 of the 'Encyclical Humani Generis. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
I realize that off line, there is a debate about *Humani Generis *#37. For me, it was like icing on a cake.
Regarding what you put in bold, Personally, I now prefer CCC 390 over the CCC paragraphs which address literary techniques, etc. This is because CCC 390 cuts to the chase…Original Sin which we understand through the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
If one is not careful, the semantics of “uses figurative language” will be interpreted as [all of] Genesis is figurative! (I am not making this up.) What I do to sort out semantics is to look for the operative word(s). One of the major operative words is "uses’. Apparently, it is easy to read “uses” as “is”. There is a huge difference between “uses” and “is”. One such difference is that “uses” does not apply to all words. We know this because not every word of every verse automatically becomes Catholic doctrine. It is through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that, over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been able to discern what is Divine Revelation.
Divine Revelation trumps.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Why would a natural phenomena be anything but Grace? How could it be anything but Grace? The “Fall from original justice” is separation from God. We chose that. That necessitated our being able to return, as prodigal children, to go Home. We can’t do that, if we are Home, can we?
Have fun.
I don’t have to. You’re the one who brought up angels, not me. I only have to explain why I believe what I believe. And only if I choose to.
So I’m supposed to be all… what? *OH NO! It says so in Scripture!!! I am undone!!! * (Or possibly “dismantled?”
) Do you recall what you were supposed to be demonstrating? Do you know that the Church does not support a literalist view of Scripture? Do you have some authoritative source for interpreting this from a highly imaginative writer as: exactly 33.33~ % of all angels fell?Pretty sure there’s nothing either dogmatic or doctrinal to support your dogmatic declaration of exactly what percentage of angels fell.
Ad hom isn’t argument and is always irrelevant. However, the difference is that I am, obviously, giving my opinion, stating the way things work as I understand them. What you are doing is making dogmatic assertions that are supposed to be the absolute teaching of the Church. So, dogma requires verification. You started out making the claim that you are a seminarian. So you are claiming special knowledge. I’m asking for a demonstration of that.
Now, maybe we can get back to the topic with some stuff the Church has provided for us:
These are the notes from the NAB. Accepting this explanation, which comes from the Church in the translation the Vatican ordered, and approved for liturgical use and appears on the USCCB website, we see that the story of the Fall, as recounted earlier than 4:5 is the story, in figurative language, of the fall of humankind - our separation from God.
We are separated from God because we live in Time and He lives in Eternity. Yet, we are eternal beings, we don’t become that after we pass, we are eternal right now. We were created as eternal beings. We don’t get uncreated or “dismantled” if we refuse Grace, we go to hell, a state of eternal separation from God. You and I and all humanity, we are not part of the nothingness that comprises time/space. We exist in this state for our benefit, but we are in the world, not of the world.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
You know what? Switching the conversation mid-stream is pretty dishonest. You know very well I was referring to all your “IDvolution” links, as that is what the post you are supposedly responding to refers to. And those links and books are unscientific mumbo-jumbo produced by Protestant Biblical literalists (the ones who tossed out whatever parts of Scripture they didn’t like) to support a literal interpretation which contradicts Magisterial teaching on the subject. So, you’re promoting anti-Catholic sources every time you post one and also contradicting the Church.
That can’t be a good thing.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please be specific. What IDvolution links are Protestant?
G
grannymh
Guest
To Faith, the OP,
In addition to post 168, I hope that sometime in the future we can discuss the semantics of #37 of Humani Generis. It is here that Polygenism is compared with Monogenism with the decision that Monogenism is correct;
In addition to post 168, I hope that sometime in the future we can discuss the semantics of #37 of Humani Generis. It is here that Polygenism is compared with Monogenism with the decision that Monogenism is correct;
F
Faith1960
Guest
Anthropologists say otherwise, and they know far more about anthrolopogy than Pope Pius XII did.
B
buffalo
Guest
Still waiting:
faith1960 - when you get back share with me the top three evidences for there not being an Adam and Eve together with their base assumptions.
G
grannymh
Guest
The way Humani Generis sections 35, 36, 37, and 38 are written, it is obvious that Pope Pius XII knew exactly what was going on in anthropology. In fact, he refers to the biological and anthropological sciences in #38 in addition to his evaluation of the “present state of human sciences” in #36. His description of contemporary polygenism is on target. What amazes me is that his reference to the error of “Adam as a representative” is what some Christians are claiming on today’s BioLogos website.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
In fact I claimed the opposite. Kindly don’t puts words in my mouth. That was somewhat hurtful to me.
The crux of your problem is that you do not believe God created man as a composite of spirit and flesh, in the beginning. The imago Dei is not symbolic, and nor is the first couple-- Adam and Eve, man and women. You may believe their environment and external factors to be symbolic, but their created nature of body and spiritual soul is a dogma of Faith.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
In 1950. In 1950 they still thought Piltdown Man was a human ancestor. If he’d had the genetic evidence we have today, he would have written differently. Luckily, we have Benedict XVI.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I don’t have a problem, Anthony.
Time/space is finite, Anthony.
You have a good day.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
“Time” is used in a broader sense here, as from the beginning of creation. Accordingly, angels were also made “from the beginning of time” but their nature is purely spiritual, distinguished explicitly from the purely corporeal order of creatures.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding the Piltdown Man. "As early as 1913, David Waterston of King’s College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The work of Gregor Mendel, Father of Genetics, was rediscovered in the 1900’s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Result from Wikipedia article – “In the end, the two approaches were combined, especially by work conducted by R. A. Fisher as early as 1918. The combination, in the 1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory of natural selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.”
From the link to modern synthesis."The previous development of population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.[2] "
As evinced by the dates above, modern science was in place some years before 1950. As the years passed, modern genetic evidence did not change the issue of polygenism which was firmly in place at the time of Humani Generis.
Of course, one might argue that Humani Generis was prophetic in its description of polygenism.
- Status