When the Vatican gets it right...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish"

dang, that's deep!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am a little confused, so please enlighten me...

Does the Catholic church believe we are all descended from the Adam of Genesis, or not?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hell, you can still believe in Evolution and think that Adam existed.

that wasn't my question. Rather I asked, "Does the Catholic church believe we are all descended from the Adam of Genesis, or not?"

I'll even take the question further than that: "Does the Catholic church believe God took a single person, Adam, and created out of Adam alone, all the peoples of the earth?"

---

Adam was probably the first cultured anatomically correct human that lived in Northern Africa

are you trying to say Adam's parents were uncivilized mutants?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am a little confused, so please enlighten me...

Does the Catholic church believe we are all descended from the Adam of Genesis, or not?

This is from Americancatholic.org:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that is NOT what catholic.com says:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, it is Catholic Answers, not "catholic.com".  Secondly, while Catholic Answers is generally a great scource for information, it is also extremely orthodox in its general outlook.  Do you want to quote a site that still preaches that the Catholic sacraments are the only true path to salvation, when the Church officially abandoned that idea 40 years ago?

are you saying catholic.com misquoted Pope Pius XII?  if not, sounds like to me Pius XII stated belief that all of us are descended from Adam and Eve is not a option for Christians.

in any case, do you believe we are all descended from Adam?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you don't believe that Adam & Eve existed, doesn't the whole system start to break down?

good question, but I think a simpler and more straightforward question is: 

Does denying that current-day-humanity descended from Adam contradict the bible's own interpretation of the story of Adam?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you don't believe that Adam & Eve existed, doesn't the whole system start to break down?

good question, but I think a simpler and more straightforward question is: 

Does denying that current-day-humanity descended from Adam contradict the bible's own interpretation of the story of Adam?

No, because it's just a story (and stupid arbitrary sexist story at that).  The lessons of that story are what's important, not whether or not it actually happened.

Here is just one example of the bible's own interpretation of the Genesis-Adam story:

Acts 17:26-27 "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

Therefore, the New Testament interprets the Genesis's story of Adam as it were a literal historical account, which should come as no surprise because that is exactly what Genesis claims it is - a historical account.  Also note that the Acts' statement does NOT say "from one man and one woman", but simply says "from one man", thus backing up Genesis' account that Eve was formed out of Adam.  

As far as I am concerned, that's the end of discussion!  And I am perfectly happy and willing to be one of the few remaining Christians who agree with the bible's own interpretation of itself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.

then I am confused with the point of this whole thread.  Seems to me, believing that we all came from Adam is the antithesis of evolution.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.

then I am confused with the point of this whole thread.  Seems to me, believing that we all came from Adam is the antithesis of evolution.

Wow.  We aren't only hear what we want to hear, are we?

Am I?

I must have missed the post that reconciled evolution with the belief we all came from a single person (Adam).

Can you kindly point me to that post?

(Or are you saying that Pius did NOT believe that we are all descended from Adam?!)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.

then I am confused with the point of this whole thread.  Seems to me, believing that we all came from Adam is the antithesis of evolution.

Wow.  We aren't only hear what we want to hear, are we?

Am I?

I must have missed the post that reconciled evolution with the belief we all came from a single person (Adam).

Can you kindly point me to that post?

(Or are you saying that Pius did NOT believe that we are all descended from Adam?!)

You were one of those children that had a really hard time understanding Animal Farm and The Chronicles are Narnia weren't you?

Since Supersoulty refuses to answer the question, can anyone deduce whether or not Pius XII beleived that we were all descended from a single man, who is referred to in Genesis and commonly known as "Adam"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As far as I am concerned, that's the end of discussion!  

well, alright, but Genesis as a historical account flies in the face of basically all scientific data ever collected remotely pertaining to the issue.  you can think that if you like, but closing yourself off to any and all evidence to the contrary...

jmf, if we are all descendants of Adam, why does the scientific consensus point in another direction?  is God trying to trick us?

I would blindly guess that it has to do with the assumptions science makes about nature and about the bible:
1) about nature - assuming everything is the result of continued natural processes
2) about the bible - assuming Adam was created within 6x24 hours of the earth (which the bible does NOT state)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, you consider "day" in Genesis to not necessarily mean ~24 hours?

yeah, and that is easily provable using scripture.

1) Gen 1:1 states that the earth "became void", hinting that something may have been here prior
2) the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day, so the mornings and evenings of the 6 days can NOT be defined by ~24hrs
3) the 7th day in Gen 2 was an eternal rest, and the Sabbath day is said to forshadow God's eternal rest that awaits the faithful (see Hebrews 3:7-4:12). This is why Genesis has a morning, but leaves out an evening for the 7th day.
4) Adam and Eve were told to REfill (replenish) the earth, hinting that something may have been here prior to Adam and Eve.  Actually, it is the EXACT same command given to Noah when he disembarked from the Ark.

---

because it clearly says "there was morning - the sixth day" and "by the seventh day".  the reference to a "morning" seems to point against the idea of the days actually representing protracted periods of time.

I agree the 7 days were chronological.  But that does NOT define the length of each day.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Since Supersoulty refuses to answer the question, can anyone deduce whether or not Pius XII beleived that we were all descended from a single man, who is referred to in Genesis and commonly known as "Adam"?

why am i being greeted by silence?

Yo, granola, can you lend me a hand?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Since Supersoulty refuses to answer the question, can anyone deduce whether or not Pius XII beleived that we were all descended from a single man, who is referred to in Genesis and commonly known as "Adam"?

I did answer the question.  You seem to have failed to notice my answer though.  Nothing new about that.  That's why I stopped posting in our last debate.

I can not find your answer to the question.  Do you mind posting your previous answer?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can not find your answer to the question.  Do you mind posting your previous answer?

Perhaps you ought to read more carefully, then.

this is all that I have found:

Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.

to which I replied:

Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.

then I am confused with the point of this whole thread.  Seems to me, believing that we all came from Adam is the antithesis of evolution.

so, since you have stated "Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam"...how do you reconcile that statement with the theory of evolution?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is what happens when fools take people out of context.  Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.  But, he was saying that to contradict the notion that anyone one human, Christian or non-Christian, is more advanced, or greater than any other (a notion you would most likely disagree with).  Basically, he was denying Nazism, genocide, etc, and the notion that there is such a thing as an "elect" (from birth) and that should be used to discriminate against other human beings.

It is one of the many statements that Pius made against Nazi practices that people ignore, or bash for not having been "clear enough".  It is a metaphor, for saying that we are all the same people in God's eyes.

sorry, I didn't notice your statment (which I placed in red) the first time I read your post...

Supersoulty, I am having trouble reconciling your interpretation of Pius  (which I placed in red) with the actual statement of Pius:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like Pius is stating that we are all physically descended from Adam and the original sin was actually committed by an individual Adam and it was passed through generation to all of us.

In fact, the way I read Pius XII is that he is clearly stating that the belief that we are all phyically descended from Adam is NOT an option

Is that not a fair interpretation of what Pius is saying?

---

[just noticed I overwrote a previous post of mine...sorry for the confusion...I've tried to combine the elements of both]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

After spending about an hour reading other Catholic statements regarding evolution, I can not make heads or tails out their current position.  Their position seems to be going through its own evolution and seems to have become purposely murky and revisionary to the extent that they're no longer taking a position at all.

As to my own point of view…For the record:

I understand the Genesis account is symbolic, as is the ENTIRE Old Testament.  But I also understand the bible interprets the Old Testament as BOTH “the literal historical record” (e.g. King David was a literal person) and “symbolic of future events” (e.g. King David symbolized the Messiah).

I believe Genesis is to be interpreted BOTH literally and figuratively, because that is EXACTLY how the New Testament interprets it:

Example of Symbolical Interpretation of Genesis:

Gal 4:21”Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.  24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. ”

Example of Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

Acts 17:26-27 "From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Something I have noticed over the years when reading Catholic writings:  the older the Catholic document, the more likely it is to match my own beliefs.  Here is a perfect example:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf 

It is a very in-depth (148 pages) Catholic study of St. Augustine writings on creation, the same writings the Church is now using to claim support for Evolution.  The Catholic study finds St. Augustine’s writings to be completely contrary to the notion of Evolution and summarizes its points on page 46:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bottom line, I have read St Augustine’s writings several years ago, and my interpretation of St. Augustine’s writing match the above study’s finding and I pretty much agree with the study’s concluding remarks:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do think the Catholic Church is being revisionary in regard to St. Augustine's writings.  And, now again, as always, I find my doctrine to have more in common with earlier Catholics.  And, when it comes to the oldest writings of the Church Fathers, I am more Catholic in many regards than the current day Catholic Church.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Pius said that belief in the evolutionary theory that all humans had a common source is not anti-Christian.  But, that wasn't the only theory of evolution that was prominent when he wrote those words.  There were people who believed that "humanity" sprouted up in different places, from slightly different creatures.  There were scientific racists.  Eugenics was still quite popular.  What Pius is addressing here is those theories of evolution.  The ones that said some people are different and better than other people.  The belief that any walking, talking, thinking creature is in any way different or inherently superior to another is anti-Christian because it violates the notion that God created us all in his own image, equally.

Pius makes a stand for that, because that is that ballgame, right there. 

I simply can not reconcile the below quote with you're above interpretation of it.  I am NOT questioning what argument he is addressing, it's just that the points he makes are universal and cannot be undone simply by changing the target of the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But his opinion doesn't mean anything to me, I just find it interesting that some sects, especially ones who espouse doctrinal infallibility, pretend there is no creep in their doctrine when there obviously is.  The denial of change often leads to the burying of previously issued opinions, and/or the reinterpretation of a prior thesis (e.g. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf for an example).

At some point, the attempt to reconcile all previous published material leads to half-baked explanations:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Double “Huh?!”

---

My search for truth is much simpler, I let scripture interpret scripture:

Acts 17:26 “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.”

That is obviously a literal interpretation of Genesis by the New Testament (not to mention the New Testament also traces Jesus’ human genealogy back to Adam).  And from your Catholic point of view, that’s an interpretation with which St Augustine would have agreed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

You're fighting for "The Truth"?   now, that is rich!  since you've never bothered to take your sideline self to the frontlines, or even picked up a newspaper, let me clue you in:  it is Islam that wants to create the apocalypse by destroying Israel.  Christians like myself are simply warning you of that fact.

And once the Israeli/Muslim conflict boils over and turns your dream of living in a sideline utopia upside down, you'll be advocating the use of force against Israel:

"And they gathered the armies of the world together to the place called in Hebrew, Hill of Megiddo [Armageddon]." (Rev 16:12-16)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

You're fighting for "The Truth"?   now, that is rich!  since you've never bothered to take your sideline self to the frontlines, or even picked up a newspaper, let me clue you in:  it is Islam that wants to create the apocalypse by destroying Israel.  Christians like myself are simply warning you of that fact.

And once the Israeli/Muslim conflict boils over and turns your dream of living in a sideline utopia upside down, you'll be advocating the use of force against Israel:

"And they gathered the armies of the world together to the place called in Hebrew, Hill of Megiddo [Armageddon]." (Rev 16:12-16)

Euh, pardon, but, sounds you give me a will that I've not.

Hey, I don't know, maybe I get nothing, maybe some fundamentalist Christians don't want apocalypse, maybe they're not fascinated by this, maybe they don't think it could be a mean for the return of Jesus. Maybe I'm all wrong. Maybe I'm not.

Anyway, by now I just see risks of fascination for a religious apocalypse in the future, as much by Christians as by Muslims, all of this because of all the sides of our context (economy, psychology, history...). But, if I think there could be chances for this fascination, the perspective of an apocalypse is not what I would personally prefer. Yes, I hope in perspectives for the future, and the best possible.

the only chance you're taking is ignoring reality