Sunday, May 28, 2023

Jimmy Akin Isn't Catholic on Adam and Eve, Nor Honestly Telling what Pius XII Said

What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?
Reason & Theology, 27 May 2023

0:24 So, Pius XII made a document with §36 so lame it will go to history as worse than when Honorius forbade polemics against Monotheletism. At least in its reception. As to the wording, it could arguably have invited to actual debate with Creationists, full fledged Creationists like Ottaviani, actually getting to argue why the Bible and even science bans the idea of Adam having non-human ancestry. Now, non-human ancestry is not Jimmy Akin's position, but in 1950 his position would have been instantly stamped as what it is, polygenism, and been banned on account of §37.

And I hear two people complaining that §37 is basically too strict for our times ...

3:10 I think, while he is saying that Adam's soul was directly created by God, he is also saying that souls did not evolve along bodies, so, at some point, if evolution is true, someone has a soul created in God's image, while those giving rise to his body hadn't. Obviously, that someone would be Adam. In 1941 he had already cautioned, if Adam had progenitors, they were not in the full and real sense his parents, since despite anatomical likeness, they weren't human. That was in an allocution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

This part obviously conflicts with Jimmy Akin's position.

However, the evolutionary solution to the question, "Adam had progenitors," is against the goodness of God, since it would have made Adam a feral child before he had sinned.

3:53 Yeah, 1992 ... wait, you are speaking of another occasion in 1996? ... in 1996, Wojtyla was not just Antipope in the sense of being a sham Pope who was not teaching Catholicism, but he was also an Antipope in the sense that Pope Michael had already been elected. 1990.

4:22 "He does not mention Pius XII's restriction on polygenism"

Since unlike the requirement to submit to the judgement of the Church, Wojtyla was not submitting to Trent Session V.

5:10 "a caution against polygenism"

Cum vero de alia coniecturali opinione agitur, videlicet de polygenismo, quem vocant, tum Ecclesiae filii eiusmodi libertate minime fruuntur.

This is not a caution, it's a ban.

The sons of the Church in no wise enjoy this kind of freedom, that's a ban, not a caution.

5:19 He does not in so many words say "it is false" since the encyclical is not a syllabus, but takes the form of paternal discussion of what can and can't be done.

But he does say what boils down to "it cannot be true."

5:43 He doesn't say "we don't have the liberty to freely discuss it" he says we don't have the liberty to even entertain it. Here is a close analysis of the Latin.

Non enim christifideles eam sententiam amplecti possunt,

For Christians cannot embrace the sentence

quam qui retinent asseverant

which, the ones who hold it ascertain

vel post Adam hisce in terris veros homines exstitisse, qui non ab eodem prouti omnium protoparente, naturali generatione originem duxerint,

that either after Adam in these lands true man have existed, who did not take their origin by natural generation from the same as from the first parent of all.

vel Adam significare multitudinem quamdam protoparentum;

or that Adam signifies a kind of multitude of first parents.

cum nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi queat

as it is nowise apparent how such a sentence could be consistent

cum iis quae fontes revelatae veritatis et acta Magisterii Ecclesiae proponunt

with the things the sources of revealed truth and acts of the Magisterium of the Church propose

de peccato originali quod procedit ex peccato vere commisso ab uno Adamo,

about the Original sin, which proceeds from the sin truly committed by one single Adam

quodque generatione in omnes transfusum, inest unicuique proprium

and which spilled over into all by generation, is inherent in each as his own.

And please note, the reference to Trent Session V means, not a lack of liberty to openly discuss, but loss of faith and Church membership on even interiorly thinking such things as polygenism.

5:55 No, he did not say "it is not obvious how" but "it is in nowise appearing how" ...

It's a bit like saying "it is in no way appearing how matter could give rise to thought" as underlining the rational basis for saying "matter cannot give rise to thought."

Jimmy Akin is simply falsifying how it's worded or what the words actually mean.

6:25 "can these two things be reconciled?"

The ones who did that certainly overstepped the limit which was set, not so much by Humani Generis, as by Trent Session V and indeed the Bible itself.

Their solutions arguably contradict condemnations already given.

No comments: