So where did that come from because you never got it from Rome.
The book of Genesis is an historical narrative. Elements of poetic prose are literary feature but they, like all Christian scholars, understand that Genesis is historical in nature. There might be some awkward rationalization of rather or not a 24 hour day is actually 24 hours but you didn't get your rhetoric from Rome.
Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. (CCC 289)
Sorry if there was some confusion, but I was referring pretty much exclusively to poetic elements in the first chapter of Genesis when I said that. I believe in a literal Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. Genesis does convey actual history, but not in purely literal language (ie., Genesis doesn't require belief in a 7 day creation). I think that we actually agree pretty firmly on this. My argument here (that Genesis is history with non-literal literary elements) is something in complete agreement with the Vatican, and I think it's also the same thing that you're saying.
The Eucharist or the bread becoming the literal body of Christ does go back quite a ways, it actually predates the Roman Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is a much more modern and very different thing since it's a formal doctrine. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the bread in the Lord's Supper is anything other then bread.
I did actually give an example of a quote from St. Paul's epistles which suggests that sinning against the Eucharist is the same as sinning against the body and blood of Christ. Along with the historical evidence that the earliest followers of the apostles believed that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, this should be sufficient to say that the doctrine is more strongly supported than the Protestant view (the strictly anti-sacramental view, which is most common in modern evangelicalism, emerged in the 16th century with Ulrich Zwingli).
The language currently used to describe transubstantiation is heavily Aristotelian, and I doubt that Ignatius of Antioch would have used the words that we do. However, his beliefs were the same. The early Church believed that the bread and wine of communion became Jesus, rather than simply coexisting with Jesus (as in the Lutheran doctrine).
Nor is there anything in Scripture indicating that Genesis is anything other then an historical narrative.
I'm actually not going to argue that it isn't historical. I will argue, however, that it contains elements of symbolism.
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
I actually was a creationist for a very long time. Very briefly, I held to Young Earth Creationism. For a much longer time, I held to OEC, with evolution for everything but human beings. Scientific evidence convinced me that human evolution had really occurred, and I came up with pretty much every way to get around it that I could. At some point, I realized that I really couldn't.
While I agree with this statement that people do easily persuade themselves on doubtful or false things, it is also possible to be persuaded of something true.
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
Early statements by the popes regarding evolution dealt with the science as it existed at the time. Reading
Humani Generis as though it reflects the current understanding of evolution is very difficult, although it
does reflect the timeless truth that we should always look at science as what it is, rather than an infallible guide to the Universe. More recently, Pope John Paul II had this to say about evolution:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
While this
doesn't constitute an endorsement of evolution (contrary to what some may say, the pope was very careful regarding this; I would imagine that it's connected to the fact that Church does not promote scientific theories, since they're out of its purview when they don't conflict with Catholic doctrine).
Also, in the words of the current Pope Benedict XVI (then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith):
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
I agree that we (as human beings generally) should not accept scientific theories without thorough evaluation or unconditionally (ie., we shouldn't be dogmatic about any particular theory). However, we can look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. The idea that evolution occurred is now known to be very firmly supported. We can accept it in the same way that we accept any scientific finding of similar strength, knowing that faith and science cannot contradict.
Humani Generis, shortly before the sentence you quoted, says this:
However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable...be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure...
This would seem to leave no room for the categorical rejection of evolution without evaluation, either. Evolution (barring an official pronouncement against it by the Vatican, which seems unlikely), is to stand or fall on its own evidence. So far, it has stood very firmly.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
To accept evolution does not mean to accept philosophies which twist it for their own ends. I accept evolution, but I do not accept that evolution makes
The God Delusion any more accurate, for example.
In the promulgation of
Humani Generis, the pope was stating that these ideas are fictitious, regardless of the truth of evolution. He allowed for evolution's potential reality, but not of these theories. Therefore, they can't be explicitly connected.
Rome has never reduced any part of Genesis to poetic prose, the suggestion is baseless and false.
The Catholic Church does actually accept that there is a lot of symbolism in Genesis. If you mean that the Church does not accept that Genesis is ahistorical, though, then I agree. The Church affirms the historicity of Genesis, while still holding that it contains symbolic and poetic elements. There is a difference between literalism and historicity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is basically a compendium of what the Church teaches, puts it this way:
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.
This is an example of how something may be both figurative and historical.
