Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[EndTimes]

There is no contradiction. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16, 32, 64 … In all those millions of ancestral couples as long as just one couple had souls then all their modern descendants also have souls, including yourself.

NOPE - IT’s not actually that way without stop.

Man starts with 2… which went on to become Billions.

 

[rossum]

Really? All of my ancestors had rational souls. Do you have ancestors that did not?

Both of us had ancestors who did not have rational souls as well as ancestors who did have rational souls. Rational souls are not inherited, they are created directly by God.

 

[gama232]

That is speculation, nothing more. I doubt the Church believes this and that statement is based on Church documents. It is not my opinion only.

If you think you are right then send the data and interpretation to Pope Francis.

 

[o_mlly]

Both of us had ancestors who did not have rational souls as well as ancestors who did have rational souls. Rational souls are not inherited, they are created directly by God.

I think that too liberal a use of the word “ancestors”. In the manner you use, you would have ancestors that were bacteria, no? I prefer to call all my ancestors as beings in the same species, i.e., human being.

 

[gama232]

You are exactly right. Supposedly, human beings started out as single-celled organisms. My ancestors were not single-celled organisms.

 

[rossum]

I prefer to call all my ancestors as beings in the same species, i.e., human being.

Unfortunately for your argument, “human being” is not a scientifically defined species, the scientific species is Homo sapiens. All you need to do now is to show us how to detect whether or not a particular fossil had a soul or not. Did all, some or none of Homo neanderthalensis have souls? How can we tell, objectively? We know from DNA that some Homo sapiens have a small proportion of Neanderthal DNA, so those humans could possibly have had unsouled ancestors. They certainly have non-Homo sapiens ancestors.

Souls are a theological construct while ancestors are a scientific construct. That can cause difficulties because they come from different bodies of knowledge.

 

[gama232]

Which human ancestor is a ‘true man’? Which isn’t?

 

[rossum]

My ancestors were not single-celled organisms.

How do you know? Were you there?

Humani Generis talks about “the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”. (HG-36) Where does it specify that such “pre-existent and living matter” has to be multicellular rather than unicellular?

You are adding extra conditions to what the Pope said. You are allowed to do that, but they are just your personal conditions; they do not have the authority of the Catholic Church and are not binding on other people.

 

[gama232]

By all means, tell Pope Francis that. The Church has never claimed a human origins story like that. And yes, God was there. He can’t be excluded. That’s not my personal opinion.

 

[Dovekin]

The human being would only be those creatures who had the (biological) physical capability for rational thought and (anthropological) left us evidence in their effects that they possessed a rational capability.

It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
John Paul II.

”If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.” This is St John Paul’s restatement of HG.

Rational thought takes place in the soul, not in the body. ”the (biological) physical capability for rational thought” gives the impression that rational thought is a physical characteristic, or based on physical characteristics. That is one theory of evolution, but an unacceptable one for Catholics.

 

[Allyson]

Do you see the explicit contradiction in your post? Unless you are describing two different species the two claims make no sense.

There is no contradiction because I am not insisting on the special creation of the human body like you appear to be. Plus, as I said before, the solution is not one that I have settled on. It is one that proposed in response to my OP. So far it has been the best one.

You beat me to the question I was going to ask, so would it be correct to say that you think that no pre-existing living matter was used by God? Or where do you draw the line with such living matter? Pius allowed for such speculation, and no Pope has rescinded that permission.

I think that too liberal a use of the word “ancestors”. In the manner you use, you would have ancestors that were bacteria, no? I prefer to call all my ancestors as beings in the same species, i.e., human being.

You are exactly right. Supposedly, human beings started out as single-celled organisms. My ancestors were not single-celled organisms.

But more seriously, why limit God’s creative power to a book written by fallible men. The Bible is Divinely Inspired; not Divinely Dictated.

You willfully ignore what you and others insist is true about evolution. The soul? What would the discussion be here about? No soul? God doesn’t create souls?

No - it’s about evolution only. Why souls get mentioned I have no idea.

This is all about changing Church teaching about God’s creation, or, in your words, natural history.

Ummm…why wouldn’t we discuss the soul. HG re-emphasized that it is directly created by God and in no way evolved because of any bodily changes or created by bodily propagation (ah euphemisms). Why do you want to hold to such a literal view when it is in no way required by the Church?

 

[gama232]

I suggest you take all of the information, and the interpretation you have, and send it to Pope Francis. Based on Church documents, not my opinion, he can give you his take on all this provided you are ready to submit to the judgment of the Church as stated in HG.

Regarding the Bible, here is what the Catechism tells us:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture . "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

[107] The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[Pattylt]

That’s not my personal opinion.

Over and over you have said this. Over and over it has been pointed out that it isn’t the only option. So, do you have an opinion or does the church dictate every opinion you have? I’m serious, Ed. It sounds like you don’t have any thoughts of your own. Do you? Please share…

 

[Allyson]

I suggest you take all of the information, and the interpretation you have, and send it to Pope Francis. Based on Church documents, not my opinion, he can give you his take on all this provided you are ready to submit to the judgment of the Church as stated in HG.

Regarding the Bible, here is what the Catechism tells us:

Nothing that I have said is out of step with the CCC. First, it speaks of inspiration. Second it speaks of Divine Truths - not empirical claims about the natural world.

I certainly could write Francis if I thought I needed that; however, I went to a University faithful to the Magisterium for my theology studies, which is where I learned about how the Catholic Church interprets scripture.

From Catholic Answers Live:

 

[Allyson]

So, do you have an opinion or does the church dictate every opinion you have?

He claims it to be the opinion of the Church, but really it is his opinion on the opinion of the Church.

 

[Allyson]

Since I believe that earlier in the thread (or on the other one) he said he stands with Catholic Answers, I am curious about if he will agree with their employees.

 

[gama232]

Contact the Pope. That way you will be sure to not get my opinion. That way you can see what he says about biological evolution. So far, the Church has had the final say. Pope Benedict has stated evolution cannot be proven, and by proven he means shown to be true.

That’s why I quote Popes and Church documents.

The only reason this thread exists is to challenge Church teaching about human origins. So go to the top and get the final word.

 

[Allyson]

The only reason this thread exists is to challenge Church teaching about human origins

Look at who is assuming now You are assuming ill intent. You are wrong about Church teaching on this matter. You are setting yourself up for a crisis of faith by insisting on a literalism that can be dis-proven. Did you watch the clip with Trent Horn? He is a face of Catholic Answers. He explains the broad strokes of what the Church teaches about evolution. It is NOT what you claim.

 

[Freddy]

Contact the Pope. That way you will be sure to not get my opinion. That way you can see what he says about biological evolution.

He says:

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Seems reasonable to me. He thinks it consistent with creation. Which you don’t. Not sure where we could go from here. And he also says a few other things with which you don’t agree:

"We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own.”

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”

Are you sure you want to use the pope as the final say in these matters? He accepts evolution and he thinks the universe started with the Big Bang (which didn’t happen a few thousand years ago). You keep referring us to people who hold views directly opposed to yours.

Colour me bemused.

 

[gama232]

Communion and Stewardship:

"In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).’