Magisterium and Polygenism

Creation vs. Evolution: Is It Christianity at All? · New blog on the kid: "Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White ·Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dr Joel Edmund Anderson - a Fraud or a Dupe? · Magisterium and Polygenism · An Unexpected Turn

Did All Humans Come from Adam and Eve According to the Magisterium?
Reason & Theology, 28 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECsWwzBm0tc

3:59 That antipope once said "in the East Block we are brainwashed and are aware of that, in the West you are brainwashed and not aware of that" - now, when he stated that good evidence since then has proven the human body evolved from non-human animals, was he aware of being brainwashed?

5:33 Trent Session V and the condemnation of Isaac La Peyrère say polygenism is false.

Pius XII using regulatory language is yet another nail in the coffin of those pretending he doctrinally defined evolution leading up to Adam's body as compatible with the faith. No, he didn't.

When he spoke of preparedness of submitting to rulings of the Church his regulatory deed actually did not mention those rulings had to be subsequent to his own deed.

Submitting to Trent session IV on consensus of Church Fathers and to Trent Session V on Original sin is definitely not beyond the limits he proposed in a regulatory way.

So, why do you waste time on the regulatory deed, when there are doctrinal ones, like putting La Peyrère on the Index and like Trent Session V?

5:52 "it is not obvious how" ...

cum nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi queat cum iis quae fontes revelatae veritatis et acta Magisterii Ecclesiae proponunt de peccato originali quod procedit ex peccato vere commisso ab uno Adamo, quodque generatione in omnes transfusum, inest unicuique proprium (cfr. Rom. 5, 12- 19; Conc. Trid. sess. V, can. 1-4).

"Cum nequaquam appareat quomodo" is much harsher than "it is not obvious how" - it's a rhetorical understatement of polygenism cannot be squared with it.

In order for there to be new liberties in this matter since then, the least one would ask is an apparently coherent model for how this is to be squared with original sin. Which Antipope Wojtyla didn't provide. But given how Latin urbanity involves rhetorical understatements, a bit how C. S. Lewis does, the basic takeaway is, polygenism cannot be squared with original sin, therefore polygenism is necessarily false, ergo must in practise be treated as false.

It can be added, Adam being born to non-human (and in Pius XII's thought that would be ontologically strictly non-human, however similar in biology) physical progenitors also cannot be squared with, more specifically God's total goodness to Adam before he sinned.

7:20 Mid 1960's ... an Osservatore Romano with no real Pope above it.

7:58 Antipope Montini was an even lazier watchdog than Pope (?) Pius XII, but at least he was not brainwashed by evolutionism. Italians kind of weren't. That's why Ottaviani in his preparatory schema (outcome Dei Verbum) had wanted to dogmatise creation as the Bible describes it.

14:28 So much for the post-Vatican II CDF ...

The German Catechism from the eighties replaced a catechism from the 60's I think, which was translated to Swedish, which I read when converting. That earlier one was strictly compatible with YEC and incompatible with polygenism. It gave at least the prima facie impression of being YEC.

end of video
Jimmy Akin mentioned the 1960's Osservatore Romano article, which purported to have several venues of "reconciliation" between original sin and the CHristian view of it, on the one hand, and polygenism on the other.

I read Italian moderately well, though I'd basically stutter most of the time of speaking to Italians, and this means I would very much like to get a view of that article, or even better a transscript to a web format, so phrases can be copied straight from it.

I'll send him a message to this effect.

Comment on longer video:

1:21:13 If Adam hadn't sinned, he would have been source of original justice for all born from him, but if he had then sinned after that, those already born before he sinned would not be affected.

If I wanted to rationalise Tolkien's eldar (not exactly the same thing as elves of folklore), I would state that they were born of Adam and Eve before they had sinned, the first of them would be older siblings of Cain, born in paradise. If I wanted to rationalise extra-terrestrials, I would state that God moved earthly paradise to some planet and such immortal descendants of pre-sin Adam with them.

There is no reason to believe spiritual life had to pass moment by moment through Adam as a mediator, since before he sinned God walked with Adam and Eve, so if other people had been living then, God's walk with them would have preserved them. God doesn't walk visibly with us, in theophanies, because after sin, Adam's descendants are prone to be fooled by fake theophanies from the devil (Theseus was a tragic case). That's why God needed to become Man. But a humanity without original sin would not have been as easily deceived, so God could have kept up with theophanies and giving men spiritual life without a mediator.

It was a very long video
so, before, I commented only on very few things, and those comments are here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Jimmy Akin with Michael Lofton: Makes an Ass of Himself
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/03/jimmy-akin-with-michael-lofton-makes.html