The picture in your title is the same picture that Sungenis had on the cover of his masterpiece Not By Faith Alone.
Amen, Dave! I'd comment more here, but need to get back to the chat. Just thought I'd drop by and say "hi"...and "good post!" : )
Cool! Come again, Susie. I'd love to have more regular female commenters.
You ought to have included the 37th paragraph of Humani Generis:
37. 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 no 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.
Note also what this canon from the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin says:
1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts...trent/
ct05.html
To deny the existence of a real, historical Adam is to render that canon unintelligible and meaningless. Denying the existence of Adam, or even suggesting that he may not have really existed, necessarily brings one under the force of the anathema, rendering one a material if not formal heretic.
We should also keep in mind these two canons from the First Vatican Council, from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
2. If anyone shall say that human sciences are to be so freely treated that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrines, are to be held as true, and cannot be condemned by the Church, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema.
Proposing a non-historical Adam requires us to give the doctrine of original sin a sense different from that which the Church has understood and understands. Therefore it is impossible to be a faithful Catholic and to deny or doubt the existence of Adam and Eve.
What would one make, then, of the following post of Jimmy Akin:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/
def..._bible_que.html
I'm not trying to generate intra-apologist warfare. It's just that he seems to think that the Church allows for significantly more latitude in this than is being allowed for in the original post and some of the comments.
Actually there's no problem with Jimmy Akin's observations, except here:
Hypothetically (and I am not advocating this), an interpreter might conclude that Adam and Eve represent the early human community as a whole. Pius XII strongly discouraged this interpretation in his enecyclical (sic) Humani Generis, but did not altogether preclude the possibility that the Magisterium might be open to it in the future . . .
Pius XII didn't just strongly discourage that interpretation, he said there's no way to see how that interpretation could be true. He left the door open to investigation of the evolution of the human body from non-living matter, but plainly said the faithful do NOT have the freedom to speculate that the whole human race does not descend from a single ancestor Adam. Yes, I know many Catholic exegetes and others try desperately to find a loophole in Humani Generis, but the words "it is in no way apparent" (or as Father John Hardon translated the Latin, "it is unintelligible") are very clear. He was saying that that opinion can't be reconciled with what the Bible and Magisterium say -- he wasn't double-dog-daring people to try to find a way to "reconcile" that opinion by giving the doctrine of original sin a sense different from that which the Church has understood and understands. He was saying no Catholic has the liberty to entertain such speculations. So, regardless of what many have been saying, Pius XII's words were a reminder that the possibility that Adam and Eve are nothing more than symbols of the first group of hominids has been altogether precluded by the prior dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. No Pope or Council or formally approved Catechism has ever suggested that Adam might not have really existed.
Excellent comments, that strengthen the argument in the post. Thanks very much!
Dave, the only thing I did not like in your article was the way you referred to that person who you disagreed, you called him or her ignorant. It surely was not your intention, but it sounded as a personal insult. Just saying "these claims have no basis on the catholic doctrine" would be much more polite than saying that the person was ignorant. Any human is capable of doing mistakes, what does not necessarily means that the person was bad meaned.
One thing that was not let clear neither in the text nor in the comments was the matter of the evolution. The Cathecism states: "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. 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" (CCC 390).
So accepting a historical Adam, Eve and the original sin does not necessarily mean accepting that they and the rest of the world has begun as literally described on Genesis (6 days of 24h) or that the Earth would have about 6000 years. The Bible is not a book about Science, it is about the Salvation in Jesus Christ.
My position in this matter is that God created the Universe out of nothing (e.g. Big Bang) and then it evolved, under God guidance according with His plan, to what it is today; and that in a certain point of evolution God created the human soul (i. e., only the physical body evolved, not the soul).
I cannot see in this point neither a contradiction with the catholic doctrine nor with the scientific evidence, plus that Benedict XVI clarified that evolution does not exclude a creator. It is no surprise, because reason and faith cannot contradict each other because both of them come from God:
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (CCC 159)
So whatever is the truth about the origins of the life, a catholic should examine both the biblical truth and the factual evidence to find an explanation that is in accordance both with faith and reason because they cannot contradict each other.
Some theory of evolution is not ruled out at all in Catholic teaching, and in Pius XII's encyclical. I agree. The Catholic has to accept a primal couple, from which the entire human race began, and the special creation of the soul by God in every conceived human being.
This can be synthesized with either (theistic) evolution or special creation. I think young earth creationism, however, is a ridiculous position that cannot be sustained from scientific evidence. I've always thought that.
As to the word "ignorant," it means simply "not knowing." That is indisputably the case here, and so I don't see that it is an insult to state a fact. If a person purports to be a teacher, then they have all the more responsibility to know their subject matter before passing it on to others.
As this is a rather elementary matter that could easily have been resolved in an hour's time by this person, I think he fully deserves being called merely "ignorant" and arguably much more than that.
In my opinion, such a huge mistake seriously undermines his credibility as any sort of teacher in the Church at all. What else, pray tell, would he also get wrong if he doesn't even understand this?
Here is another text from the Catechism that upholds the historical existence of a single primeval ancestor from whom came all subsequent human beings:
"Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for 'from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth'" (CCC 360, quoting St. Paul in Act. 17;26, cf. Tobit 8:6)
If Adam didn't actually exist, but was merely a literary device representing the first community of hominids, then St. Paul was wrong to say that all nations are descended from a single ancestor, and therefore the human race does not form a unity -- some of us would be "real" humans while others are subhuman, more or less closely related to the beasts and therefore fit to be used and abused.
That's another very important reason why the Church rejects polygenist speculations -- because polygenism is implicitly racist.
So, regardless of what many have been saying, Pius XII's words were a reminder that the possibility that Adam and Eve are nothing more than symbols of the first group of hominids has been altogether precluded by the prior dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. No Pope or Council or formally approved Catechism has ever suggested that Adam might not have really existed.
Very good, JP!
And yet, despite the Church’s clear teaching on this matter, there will undoubtedly always be those in the Church who, for whatever reason, will assume the role of “good and kind agent[s] for the propagation of the Gospel – i. e. the devil’s gospel.” 
LOL
See Charles Darwin’s letter to Thomas H. Huxley, August 8, 1860. http://books.google.com/books?id...22&lr=&
as_brr=0
Dave,
A member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission said recently that the first 12 chapters of Genesis had no historical value. To emphasize this, he said that they were "as historical as Little Red Riding Hood." He then went on to talk about what good friends he was with then Cardinal Ratzinger who frequently attended PBC meetings.
If the Magesterium of the churhc doesn't have problems with this kind of teaching, I'm not sure by what right you do.
Jeb,
A member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission does not constitute the Magisterium of the Church. In fact a member does not necessarily even constitute one small part of the Magisterium. Only if a member is a bishop does he even constitute a part of the Magisterium.
Pius XII's encyclical does represent the Magisterium of the Church.
And following up with what Shane said - one of my best friends is a Baptist, but there's no way on earth that I could be said to be sympathetic to (never mind in agreement with) Baptist views.
And Jesus was a friend to sinners. But that in no way makes him an endorser of our bad behavior.
Just because Cardinal Ratzinger is "good friends" with someone doesn't mean he agrees with their conclusions.
Shane,
But if a member of an organization called the "PONTIFICAL Biblical Commission" teaches something that so clearly contradicts church teaching, why doesn't the pontiff remove him? It's not as if the pope is ignorant of what is being taught.
If the Magesterium of the church doesn't have problems with this kind of teaching, I'm not sure by what right you do.
As pointed out above -- and as you've been told again and again and again -- the PBC is not the Magisterium, is not even a part of the Magisterium. It's nothing more than an advisory body of Bible scholars and experts.
Also, the Magisterium is not just those members of the Magisterium lving today -- the Magisterium extends both diachronically and synchronically.
But if a member of an organization called the "PONTIFICAL Biblical Commission" teaches something that so clearly contradicts church teaching, why doesn't the pontiff remove him?
I don't know. But if the Catholic Pope doesn't see fit to remove him from a non-dicasterial body of advisors, I'm not sure by what right you, a Protestant, do.
By the way, in case anybody is wondering what Jeb is talking about, the quote he's talking about comes from a lecture by Father Henry Wansbrough at the "launch" of the English Episcopal Conference's text, "The Gift of Scripture," in Nov. 2005. Father Wansbrough said:
The study of literary genres encouraged by the Church (#19) has in fact enabled scholars to see that religious teaching in the early chapters of the Bible is expressed under the guise of historical writing. These chapters are no more historical writing than is Little Red Riding Hood; the truths they convey are wholly different. So, referring to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, The Gift of Scripture affirms 'though they may contain some historical traces, the primary purpose was to provide religious teaching' (#2
.
http://
www.catholicchurch.org.uk...cripture_launch
So, as you can see, Jeb has misquoted Father Wansbrough. He did not say that Gen. 1-11 are "as historical as Little Red Riding Hood." He said they are "no more historical WRITING than is Little Red Riding Hood," but that "the truths they convey are wholly different." Though I think Father Wansbrough was guilty of an unnecessary and unhelpful hyperbole, still he did not say that there is nothing at all historical in those chapters. He rather asserted that their genre is not historical writing -- an opinion that may be not entirely correct, but which is nevertheless perfectly accepted for a Catholic to hold.
Anyway, Father Wansbrough did not deny the existence of Adam, so nothing Jeb has said is relevant to the discussion here.
Jeb,
It's also important to remember that, aside from his years of experience and education, the pope is just a guy in a white suit. He can't possibly hear or see everything that every member of every comission ever says - even those who are his friends. It's not at all unlikely that he doesn't even know the fellow said this.
Of course he might actually be aware. In that case, there are plenty of reasons the pope might keep him there. For one thing, this might be the guy's only issue, and he might be an altogether fantastic Biblical exegete otherwise. Or it may be something else. I really have no idea.
Whatever the reason, the fact that the Pontifical Biblical Commission is a relatively unimportant and altogether powerless group would probably have to do with it. The whole process of eliminating someone you don't want and replacing them with someone you do isn't something that a person can just do with a snap of his fingers, and the Pope simply has far more important things to worry about than the PBC. He's got dozens of heretical bishops to figure out what to do with, a worldwide political scene that is in many ways devoted to the elimination of Christianity, nation upon nation slaughtering millions of unborn children every year, and countless other situations of tremendous gravity. He just doesn't have much time to devote to a guy on a tiny little commission that 99.5% of the world doesn't even know exists.
I do not believe that I misrepresented Wansbrough. He took his point of departure a UK Catholic documents that said there were "historical traces" in early Genesis.
He replied:
"The study of literary genres encouraged by the Church (#19) has in fact enabled scholars to see that religious teaching in the early chapters of the Bible is expressed under the guise of historical writing. These chapters are no more historical writing than is Little Red Riding Hood; the truths they convey are wholly different. So, referring to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, The Gift of Scripture affirms 'though they may contain some historical traces, the primary purpose was to provide religious teaching' (#2. It follows this up with a neat little list of the important and profound truths on the dual human condition of dignity and of failure which are taught in these chapters. In all these ways the reader of these chapters is led to a deeper self-knowledge, and to a richer understanding of the personal relationship of dependence on the source of all being. I only regret that some loss of nerve led to the inclusion of 'though they may contain some historical traces'. There is no suggestion of 'historical traces' in the passage of the Pontifical Biblical Commission document cited as authority for this qualification."
So, he regrets their statement about "historical traces." He even calls the later patriarchal narratives "folk history."
There's a difference between "misrepresenting" and "misquoting" someone, but in this case your misquote amounts to misrepresenting him. As I said, "no more historical writing than is Little Red Riding Hood" does not mean that there is no connection at all between human history and the stories related in Gen. 1-11. And despite Father Wansbrough's regrets about "historical traces," it is unlikely that he denies God's creation of the heavens and earth and all that is in them -- so right away we would have him agreeing that Gen. 1-11, although not "historical writing" in genre, does have some relationship to actual events.
Again, as I said, Father Wansbrough's opinions on this matter may be incorrect -- I think they're wrong, and in any case they're excessive and hyperbolic and incautious -- but they're perfectly acceptable positions for a Catholic to hold. Catholics may not deny the existence of the first primeval parents Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean Catholics must believe Gen. 1-11 are history in the proper sense.
Some observations should also be kept in mind about the document produced by the bureacracy of the English Episcopal Conference. First, it's not a document of the Church's authentic Magisterium, but is only as authoritative as the magisterial and non-magisterial documents it relies on. Second, although it was nice of the committee who produced this document to allow that Gen. 1-11 "may contain some historical traces," such a statement is extremely weak. At the very least they "certainly" contain some historical traces, and there is also no reason a Catholic may not hold that they are essentially historical. Father Wansbrough and his ilk hold a very different opinion, but I've seen no compelling reason to accept their opinion as true. Father Wansbrough ought to remember that Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis has far, far more authority than any of the post-Vatican II PBC's study papers, and in Humani Generis we find this clear and forceful teaching:
38. 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 adapt
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.
39. 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.
Thus, Catholic exegesis regarding Gen. 1-11 must take these principles enunciated by Pius XII as their guide and lodestar. I'm afraid Father Wansbrough and the English episcopal conference bureaucracy (not to be confused with anything magisterial) have failed to do that.
very nice blog- have to check on it more often. If you are interested in
web-businesses maybe you should have a look at my blog 
Commenting by HaloScan
