Talk:Humani generis

Comment

where is the Latin text? Not even the Vatican seems to host it. dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where to start?

Well, we have to summarize the letter, and it would be nice to refer to some commenary from 1950 on the encyclical. Any ideas? Dominick ^(TALK) 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right. A "history" section wherein we discuss what social forces led to the encyclical would also be beneficial. For the most part, our articles on encyclicals are really poor quality, so we don't have much to work with. Although Humanae Vitae and Rerum Novarum aren't bad examples. --Hyphen5 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this is an excellent idea. I will be happy to contribute later to it. But right now, I think the descriptions of the encyclicals are wanting, ... priority should ge given to that. But after ... -:)

PS I added some description and quotations and deleted rhe reference to Modernism, which was not and could not be substantiated.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate text

I'm removing this text:

* Evolution is compatible with Christianity insofar as to discover "the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter,"{{fact}}

It duplicates the first point in the list. JASpencer 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated text

I'm going to remove the following text, as it lacks a citation:

==Reaction== Some theologians believe Pius XII does not explicitly exclude [[polygenism]]{{fact}}. The relevant sentence is this: :"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) 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." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreconciled Footnotes

Here are some footnotes that are reconciled:

7. Cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1796.

9. A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.

11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.

12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.

JASpencer 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hvmani spelt Humani

This may sound an odd question but I am not learned in this area. I have seen Humani (as in Hostis Humani Generis) spelt Hvmani with a V instead of a U. Why is this? I have read somewhere something about in medieval or roman times they used to do this? Does anyone have any information regarding this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.6 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question. To quote the Wiki article on the Latin alphabet, "...only after the Renaissance did the convention of treating 'I' and 'U' as vowels, and 'J' and 'V' as consonants, become established. Prior to that, the former had been merely allographs of the latter." In other words, 'U' and 'V' were functionally the same letter in classical Latin. Based upon the classical Latin inscriptions I've seen, it would seem that it was actually very common to write 'V' where we would expect to see 'U'. So writing the name of this encyclical as "Hvmani Generis" is an apparent homage to this old-fashioned Latin convention. Mike Agricola (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing verb in quotation

"Now it is 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."

This sentence seems to be missing a verb. Being a quotation, I cannot furnish one without access to a source. So please add one if you have the source. -- 92.226.91.168 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct; the quote as it currently stands appears to have been truncated in a way that makes the sentence grammatically incorrect. The full sentence reads:

Now it is in 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. Source Text (see paragraph 37)

I'll edit it to include more of the quote. Thanks for pointing this out. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

That Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange would have contributed to Humani Generis is intriguing yet confusing all at the same time. Without the citation of a reference, it is my opinion that the opening statement claiming that he did so needs to be removed from the article. Again, just my humble opinion. Thank you! Taram (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing research into Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and I am changing my opinion that it seems odd to think he would have ghost-written Humani Generis; however, as another editor commented, it would be better to have a definite comment rather than a vague probable comment in a personal blog> Just my two cents. Taram (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humani generis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)