Pope Benedict: The First Man and Evolution

[strugglingalong]

Strugglingalong,
I think there are two works that might help you get a better perspective of Catholic thought concerning Genesis and evolution. The two works are from Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all though the work of Benedict was written when he was a cardinal.

The first work is Pope John Paul II’s addresses on the human body given in late 1978 and these are closely related to his “Theology of the Body”.

The second work is Pope Benedict’s “In the Beginning”.

I would advise to read Pope Benedict’s work first (it is very short) followed by our late Holy Father’s addresses.

You may not agree with where they are coming from, however, both were noted theologians prior to becoming Pope and both represent a particular theological movement which is both conservative and modern at the same time, as the quote from Pope Benedict at the beginning of this discussion might indicate.

I own both of those works. I’ve read parts of the Theology of the Body and have yet to read In The Beginning. Both sources are notably modern. I’m just saying that I’m not willing to accept anything that contradicts the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, at least the theological points derived from the Creation accounts. Also one of my favorite theologians, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was highly critical of the New Theologians of which I’d say John Paul II was fairly similar. I wonder if Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote anything on the subject…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Deconi]

There is a problem, if some sort of “humanoids” existed before Adam and Eve, from whence did they come? From God? When?

Genesis details the original creation, God’s act of making this world. That is when He created the universe, the world and Adam and Eve. When then did He create these others and if they existed before Adam and Eve, why didn’t they have immortal souls? It’s all odd.

Everything in our Tradition tells us what Deacon Ed said: Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity, Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s side while he was asleep (a prefiguring of the Cross so it is an important truth to be literal). Once these facts are questioned then easily is Original Sin dismissed as a farce. If Sacred Scripture doesn’t paint an accurate picture of creation, some may say, why should it be right about the original fault?

It’s all, I believe, the part of evil work attacking the truths of the Faith in our modern day. Since science will never prove it, I’m content to trust what our Faith has always taught.

Pax Christi tecum.

Rest assured, Struggler, there is no problem because ‘the problem’ does not exist!

There’s a lot of ‘room’ for speculation in the Genesis account, BUT THAT’S ALL IT IS; SPECULATION

I really do feel for the Holy Fathers (Popes) because they can’t even open their ‘lips’ without idiots attributing things to them, as though to say, That’s it! The Catholic Church has said this, and The Catholic Church has said THAT!

Without meaning to be gross, I dare say The Holy Father remains tightlipped when he’s in the toilet, for fear some idiot will hear an exclamation and ‘reinterpret’ the entire faith!!

The Popes can ‘speculate’ and allowed to think ‘out loud’ just like everyone else! They’re NOT DEAD! I’m sure they make every endeavour to be as astute as they can, but they can have OPINIONS just like everyone else!!

Genesis is quite CLEAR and PRECISE in regards THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of creation. Now the means of creation method we are free to entertain and have fun with, but NOT THE ORDER of things.

For instance, the sun was not made and placed until the fourth day! That has ‘created’ many idiots by itself, since they can’t figure out how that can be when all life on this planet is reliant on that orb! Their pet theories don’t gel with Biblical records! So, they consign creation to a fable or allegory or whatever, forgetting entirely the fact that The Being we are dealing with is quite capable of possessing Night and Day as He Wishes, and command them hither and there, until He constructs their ‘natural’ constraints!

Don’t forget there’s no such thing as ‘night’ in nature. It is simply, the absence of light! But there’s no ‘light’ either, except for the illuminescense of burning gases! Yet, He must possess both since they exist in ‘form.’ He reckons He stores them somewhere when He was trying to teach Job not to be an idiot!

**There! That’s another theory for you. **

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well until there is an infallible and dogmatic definition by the Magisterium, then I’ll stick with the Traditional view of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over new “science”.

Well, you could listen to St. Augustine, a Father and Doctor of the Church, who showed that the “days” in Genesis could not be literal ones.

Unless he’s too “new” for you. (about 1650 years ago)

The YE creationism view, BTW, is no older than the last century, invented by the 7th Day Adventists, although there were some who believed in an otherwise literal six-day creation.

The really “Traditional” view is that they were not six literal days. One of his arguments was that it was absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Apparently, some modern revisionists have a “theory” as to how that could be.

 

[rossum]

Genesis is quite CLEAR and PRECISE in regards THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of creation.

Here I disagree with you. Genesis 1:20-21 tells us that God created birds on day five of creation week. Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that God created man on the sixth day of creation week. Since day five comes before day six, we have birds created before man.

Genesis 2:18-19 tells us that God created birds after He created man (Genesis 2:7).

The chronological order is not clear to me here. Did God create birds before man (as in Genesis 1) or after man (as in Genesis 2)?

rossum

 

[Deconi]

Then you shouldn’t be arguing about things you have ‘limited’ knowledge of.

You ‘see’ and are stuck with two-accounts of Genesis, when there should be one! Common sense alone should ‘bother you’ about there being two seemingly different accounts of the One incident!

Find someone who can allign the two accounts for you BEFORE you ‘listen’ to the arguments of those who would rather that Scriptures is in error or contradicting itself.

There is only one account of Creation. Simplified, the “First” is the overview, and the “Second” is the detailing of what occurred in the ‘week’ of creation!

 

[Deconi]

Well, you could listen to St. Augustine, a Father and Doctor of the Church, who showed that the “days” in Genesis could not be literal ones.

Unless he’s too “new” for you. (about 1650 years ago)

The YE creationism view, BTW, is no older than the last century, invented by the 7th Day Adventists, although there were some who believed in an otherwise literal six-day creation.

The really “Traditional” view is that they were not six literal days. One of his arguments was that it was absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Apparently, some modern revisionists have a “theory” as to how that could be.

As esteemed a Doctor and Theologian as he was, the Holy Doctor was not a Pope, nor proclaimed anything infallible, as he was quite INCAPABLE of doing so!

St Augustine was trying to work out how all this, we see, and the angels and demons, unseen, could have been created at the Creation ‘period.’ I think it was he who also supposed that one day to The Creator is as a thousand years, as the prophets alluded to in Scriptures.

Considering the sun was not made until the ‘4th thousand year’ and then must have taken the whole thousand years to make…IT IS EVEN WORSE than the literal interpretation, because the fauna had existed since the ‘3rd thousand years’ without sunlight!

To save argument, the earth is NOT 6,000 - 10,000 years old! Evidence does not support it. Nor is it 65,000,000 years old! Evidence does not support that either!

I am quite prepared to accept a billion years if there was evidence for it. All I have are the ‘suppostions’ from tests and theories (and spare me the science lecture of what a ‘theory’ is)

Currently, I am sitting between young and old. That’s where evidence has led me.

 

[Deconi]

I did forget to mention St Augustine’s qualifier for his opinions, which he maintained, that he would rather be in error and at fault in his ‘ventures’ than to say Scriptures may be in error!

Something most ‘quoters’ of the Holy saint ALWAYS dishonestly neglect to say, when trying to use him against The Church or Scriptures!

 

[rossum]

Find someone who can allign the two accounts for you BEFORE you ‘listen’ to the arguments of those who would rather that Scriptures is in error or contradicting itself.

OK, I find that fine Catholic scientist Ken Miller who tells me that the accounts in Genesis are not to be taken as simplistically literal. He says that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth evolved as described by modern evolutionary theory.

There is only one account of Creation. Simplified, the “First” is the overview, and the “Second” is the detailing of what occurred in the ‘week’ of creation!

There are two accounts of creation. Genesis 1 is taken from the P source while Genesis 2 is (mostly) taken from the J source. Perhaps it is your knowledge that is limited here?

You also failed to answer my question - were birds created before Adam or after Adam?

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

As esteemed a Doctor and Theologian as he was, the Holy Doctor was not a Pope, nor proclaimed anything infallible, as he was quite INCAPABLE of doing so!

Which of the doctors and theologians that strugglingalong is relying on were?

To save argument, the earth is NOT 6,000 - 10,000 years old! Evidence does not support it. Nor is it 65,000,000 years old! Evidence does not support that either!

How do you know?

I am quite prepared to accept a billion years if there was evidence for it. All I have are the ‘suppostions’ from tests and theories (and spare me the science lecture of what a ‘theory’ is)

Currently, I am sitting between young and old. That’s where evidence has led me.

What evidence?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

As esteemed a Doctor and Theologian as he was, the Holy Doctor was not a Pope, nor proclaimed anything infallible, as he was quite INCAPABLE of doing so!

So, suddenly, the opinion of the “Doctors and Fathers” of the Church isn’t as reliable as you were telling us? How about our current Pope? Would you believe him?

St Augustine was trying to work out how all this, we see, and the angels and demons, unseen, could have been created at the Creation ‘period.’ I think it was he who also supposed that one day to The Creator is as a thousand years, as the prophets alluded to in Scriptures.

Nope. He thought creation happened essentially instantaneously, and the “days” were figurative categories.

I am quite prepared to accept a billion years if there was evidence for it.

Good for you. There is.

 

[strugglingalong]

Well, you could listen to St. Augustine, a Father and Doctor of the Church, who showed that the “days” in Genesis could not be literal ones.

Unless he’s too “new” for you. (about 1650 years ago)

The YE creationism view, BTW, is no older than the last century, invented by the 7th Day Adventists, although there were some who believed in an otherwise literal six-day creation.

The really “Traditional” view is that they were not six literal days. One of his arguments was that it was absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Apparently, some modern revisionists have a “theory” as to how that could be.

My issue isn’t whether the days were literal or not. I don’t care honestly and God willing one day we’ll know. My issue is more with this idea of some sort of pre-humans walking around who then somehow were enlightened to know of God and became Adam and Eve, or the idea that apes walked around until God decided to put a soul into some of them. As far as if the days were 24 hours or 6 zillion years, I don’t have an opinion.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Rest assured, Struggler, there is no problem because ‘the problem’ does not exist!

There’s a lot of ‘room’ for speculation in the Genesis account, BUT THAT’S ALL IT IS; SPECULATION

I really do feel for the Holy Fathers (Popes) because they can’t even open their ‘lips’ without idiots attributing things to them, as though to say, That’s it! The Catholic Church has said this, and The Catholic Church has said THAT!

…]

The Popes can ‘speculate’ and allowed to think ‘out loud’ just like everyone else! They’re NOT DEAD! I’m sure they make every endeavour to be as astute as they can, but they can have OPINIONS just like everyone else!!

Genesis is quite CLEAR and PRECISE in regards THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of creation. Now the means of creation method we are free to entertain and have fun with, but NOT THE ORDER of things.

Yes, I agree 100% Deconi - especially in that Genesis is quite clear on the order of creation. The Popes, as you said, can speculate without all their speculations becoming de facto dogma.

The Pope can speculate, can speak and can write but it doesn’t mean he is right. It doesn’t mean it is an end to the debate.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mdcpensive1]

The passage quoted from our esteemed present pope says to me that at some particular time our first parents were the first to recognize God.
What does this mean? It means that in paleontolgy, the search for the missing link between man and animal is a myth. Since the theory of evolution has holes very wide in it, the classical evolutionary theory does not work because we cannot know the exact moment God chose to put His grace to work in giving us His first revelation.

mdcpensive1

 

[Deconi]

OK, I find that fine Catholic scientist Ken Miller who tells me that the accounts in Genesis are not to be taken as simplistically literal. He says that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth evolved as described by modern evolutionary theory.

As fine a biologist as Mr Miller is, I’m sure Biblical exegesis is not one of his strong points. Being Catholic does not mean The Church ‘speaks’ when we do, but there are indicators of what The Church MAY say given the views of the ECFS!

Ken and I are free to argue all we like, as Catholics, but IF The Church addresses the issue difinitively, that will tell who concedes the point.

There are two accounts of creation. Genesis 1 is taken from the P source while Genesis 2 is (mostly) taken from the J source. Perhaps it is your knowledge that is limited here?

Historical Criticism / Documentary Hypothesis could be a very useful tool. The ‘JPED’ methods though are artificial at best, fictitious at worst, and a farce at the very least!

Under that method, Genesis2 was written before Genesis1, and the Babylonians were sourced as the influence of the accounts. Linquitics have destroyed it though as the Egyptians have been proven to be ‘the language’ found in the Pentateuch; validating Moses as being it’s most likely ‘author’ or summarizer of Genesis!

You also failed to answer my question - were birds created before Adam or after Adam?
rossum

Adam came before other living things. Try Cornelius Lapide for the ‘contradictions’ / ‘errors’ of Scriptures (Genesis) There are other contemporary ones around, but can’t be stuffed thinking of one.

Which of the doctors and theologians that strugglingalong is relying on were?

Anyone who was a Pope!

How do you know?What evidence?

Tim

Investigation, logic and reason, research and examination (not necessarily in that order)

So, suddenly, the opinion of the “Doctors and Fathers” of the Church isn’t as reliable as you were telling us? How about our current Pope? Would you believe him?.

I stuck to Augustine because that’s who you mentioned! As an ECF of note, AND a saint, his views are extremely valid, reliable and important! But He was not a Pope, and could not declare infallibly, anything!

Also, on his own, his views would have had little weight compared to, say, Origen. But Augustine is among at least 20 plus ECFS who made some address of Genesis and STUCK to literal 6-days or 24hour periods! Among them, Basil, Clements, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Cyril, Gregory, Anthanius…etc…etc

Our current Pope? Oh, that’s right! This is where you shove words into The Popes lips as though he has ‘changed’ Catholic thought!

Ben16 is an astounding theologian, even when he was Cardinal Ratzinger! I suppose someday he may ACTUALLY use ‘The Chair’ and make a dogmatic announcement. Until then, he can write volumes of his thoughts as a theologian which may help with a direction of where to go with these discussions.

Until an ex cathedra statement though? DREAM ON!

Nope. He thought creation happened essentially instantaneously, and the “days” were figurative categories…

Yes? One of his views…and so? (He was trying to fit ‘the angels’ into the creation period, since the ‘fallen angel’ must have occurred BEFORE the forbidden fruit??..) Again, so?

Good for you. There is.

Have I said, DREAM ON already?
Mind you, I haven’t read every research and work…!

 

[mapleoak]

I do not understand this vagueness about “humans” before Adam and Eve. A human person necessarily requires the intricate union of a body and soul. An animal, for example, has no eternal soul. An angel, on the other hand, has no physical body unified with its soul.

And a human being is composed of both body and soul, neither being separate from each other.

To say there were human persons before Adam and Eve (assuming we speak of Adam and Eve as literal individuals) is just wrong. It’s a logical impossibility to have a human without a soul. At best you have a human-like primate.

In the same way that a human clone would have soul because of its human form and nature and since a human being cannot exist without a soul, a human being existing prior to Adam without a human soul is a logical impossibility.

I think it’s fairly safe, theologically speaking, to say that God built up from the “clay” human-like primates, and at some point He was satisfied with this body and created Adam when He unified a soul with a physical body.

God starts with perfection. He doesn’t improve until He is satisfied. Rather creation tends toward disorder and degeneration due to original sin.

 

[rossum]

As fine a biologist as Mr Miller is, I’m sure Biblical exegesis is not one of his strong points.

Your evidence for this statement please.

Being Catholic does not mean The Church ‘speaks’ when we do, …

Agreed.

… but there are indicators of what The Church MAY say given the views of the ECFS!

None of us know what the Church may say in future. The ECFs can be quoted in favour of non-literal interpretations of Genesis:“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

• Origen, as quoted in the Philokalia

Ken and I are free to argue all we like, as Catholics, but IF The Church addresses the issue difinitively, that will tell who concedes the point.

But until then we are all free to debate.

Adam came before other living things.

So “day” five" came before “day” six? Interesting. I assume that you exclude God from “other living things”, Psalm 42:2 notwithstanding.

rossum

 

[Deconi]

Your evidence for this statement please.

Biology rhymes with Theology, but…

Agreed.

You kid me!

None of us know what the Church may say in future. The ECFs can be quoted in favour of non-literal interpretations of Genesis:“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

• Origen, as quoted in the Philokalia

Is that Saint Origen?
We can see why he was not canonised!

You make it sound like he had support in the ECFs, which is not the case! If we appeal to the ECFS for a decision, the overwhelming weight would be 6 - literal days, as stated in Scriptures!..so don’t go there!

But until then we are all free to debate.

Debate is different to berating!

‘Heated’ debates I don’t mind. What I detest are the supposed intellects of academia belittling Catholics like they were arguing with Baptists!!..or any other Sola Scriptural entity.

Science discovers and examines what is already made.

Religion ‘discovered and examines’ Who made them.

Clearly, science is subject to religion!..never, vice versa.

Intelligence is Divine as, the soul. Without accepting the above, neither will recognise any ‘limits.’

So “day” five" came before “day” six? Interesting. I assume that you exclude God from “other living things”, Psalm 42:2 notwithstanding.

rossum

I ain’t going to do your work for you!

GOD FIRST! Premise, set!

 

[SedesDomi]

The passage quoted from our esteemed present pope says to me that at some particular time our first parents were the first to recognize God.
What does this mean? It means that in paleontolgy, the search for the missing link between man and animal is a myth.

Nope. It just means that paleontology cannot discover the first “true” man, because the hypokeimenon of humanity is not empirical.

 

[Namesake]

Clearly, science is subject to religion!..never, vice versa.

Science caused the Church to reverse herself on geocentrism. That’s just one clear example of religion being subject to science.

 

[edwest2]

Which is the desire of the planned Atheist-Scientific Technocracy. Correctly, there is a proper relationship between faith and reason. It has been outlined quite clearly by Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI has called science and religion complimentary. But, in an apparent struggle for power, scientism seeks to impose itself. If truth cannot contradict truth then it must flow in both directions, not just one. A harmonius living arrangement is based not on a power struggle but a mutual exchange.

Peace,
Ed