Adam and Eve and hell!

[Apollos]

Your preferred expressions simply convey doubt and uncertainty, which might be a true expression of your feelings about the matter but would not be for those who can truly believe they were. Some of us are able to believe things without needing water tight evidence, blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed, which is the very definition of faith.

She’s playing up reasonable doubt as if it’s equivalent to radical agnosticism. She doesn’t know what side she’s on.

 

[FCEGM]

Who’s the reading from?

It’s from a 4th century homily for Holy Saturday, author anonymous.

Are you asserting that the contents of every non-scriptural reading included in the Liturgy of the Hours is dogma and required belief? You DO know that many many theologians and other writers, even Doctors of the Church, have been flat-out wrong, don’t you?

Yes, I do. And I also know that the Liturgy of the Hours and the Mass comprise the official Liturgical worship of the Church and therefore reflect the authentic faith of the Church, even if not dogmatized.

And what’s the point of the responsory? Of course Christ rescued the FAITHFUL - that’s beyond dispute. But were Adam and Eve faithful? You don’t know, I don’t know, and the Church hasn’t pronounced in a definitive manner on the subject.

And yet the official liturgical evidence supports the belief, so a Catholic should be confident in holding to the belief in the salvation of our First Parents.

I suppose the ‘Liturgy of the A#s’ (do a google on it sometime) is also our law of belief - people certainly prayed it often enough.

I’m already familiar with the Feast of the A** (even have a cd with a carol from the feast), a popular celebration - mostly in France - commemorating the biblical account of the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt. That liturgy, however, is not an official one of the universal Church, unlike the Liturgy of the Hours to which the lex applies.

 

[LilyM]

If you believe the tradition then it is perfectly correct to say yes they were saved because that is the true expression of what you think.

‘What you think’ =/= ‘what is the truth/what is official Church teaching on the matter’. I’m surprised at you for not understanding the distinction.

‘I THINK they were saved’ is then expression to use in your case - it conveys your certainty, but at the same time recognises, correctly, that YOUR thoughts aren’t absolute truth. ‘Yes’, on the other hand, in this case, is a declaration that your thoughts and opinions, unbacked by something substantial, ARE absolute truth.

Again, I’m most astonished at you for not getting this critical distinction. You propose a relativistic system where what you believe is truth and isnot to be questioned for no better reason than merely because you think it to be true.

Your preferred expressions simply convey doubt and uncertainty, which might be a true expression of your feelings about the matter but would not be for those who can truly believe they were.

See above again. If you believe, say ‘I believe’. Even our Creed, the fundamental statement of the truths of our faith, begins with ‘I believe’ rather than anything else. If you think, say ‘I think’. I have no objections at all to your doing so.

But unless the church officially teaches it, or some scientist proves it, or it’s demonstrably true for some other reason beyond the mere fact that you think or believe it’s true, it is incorrect and totally inappropriate to just say ‘YES’.

Some of us are able to believe things without needing water tight evidence, blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed, which is the very definition of faith.

I’m not talking about water tight evidence. There’s no real evidence at all.

I haven’t seen, but I believe - truly, my faith is not a whit less than yours. But I don’t believe just because I believe. That’s by definition BLIND faith.

I believe in part because 500 WERE there and saw, some recorded what they saw, and I belive their multiple accounts, which were written (as John says) so that we might believe. And they died for their beliefs, which is also a powerful witness to the truth of what they said. Among other evidences.

So yes, I believe without having seen - but I believe based on evidence and not just on a feeling in my waters that what I think (for no good reason) is true.

John Paul entitled his encylical - FIDES ET RATIO - Faith and reason. The two are complementary, not incompatible. They go hand in glove. Nothing wrong in seeking good reasons to believe. Nothing wrong in choosing not to believe that which has no reason behind it.

 

[LilyM]

It’s from a 4th century homily for Holy Saturday, author anonymous.

Yes, I do. And I also know that the Liturgy of the Hours and the Mass comprise the official Liturgical worship of the Church and therefore reflect the authentic faith of the Church, even if not dogmatized.

I pray LOTH too. We sing hymns as part of Liturgy of the Hours. One of the hymns in my book has a line ‘death doth know his hour’. By your logic it must be true, then, that death is an actual man, because death is referred to as such in LOTH which reflects the authentic faith of the church.

Ever heard of hyperbole? Of poetry? Of imagery? Of metaphor? What more appropriate metaphor for all of sinful humanity than Adam, through whom man became sinful. What better image of the redemption open to all mankind than to envision the redemption of the father and mother of us all.

Does it mean it actually happened as described? No, just as the use by Jesus of the parable of the Good Samaritan does not mean that we are required to believe such a person really and literally existed.

These literary devices are frequently used even in sacred texts - and their presence indicates that we are not required to take every word of the non-scriptural readings literally.

 

[FCEGM]

I pray LOTH too. We sing hymns as part of Liturgy of the Hours. One of the hymns in my book has a line ‘death doth know his hour’. By your logic it must be true, then, that death is an actual man, because death is referred to as such in LOTH which reflects the authentic faith of the church.

Well, I wouldn’t think of that as referring to a man at all, but as a reference to Satan who has the power of death and will be destroyed ultimately by Christ (and he knows it). So by my logic that would reflect the authentic faith of the Church.

Ever heard of hyperbole? Of poetry? Of imagery? Of metaphor? What more appropriate metaphor for all of sinful humanity than Adam, through whom man became sinful. What better image of the redemption open to all mankind than to envision the redemption of the father and mother of us all.

Adam, however is not a metaphor, but an actual man. (Ever hear of being patronizing?)

Does it mean it actually happened as described? No, just as the use by Jesus of the parable of the Good Samaritan does not mean that we are required to believe such a person really and literally existed.

We are, however, required to believe Adam (i.e., the first man) existed, and the belief in his salvation as presented in the reading from Holy Saturday seems quite consonant with the belief of the Church.

These literary devices are frequently used even in sacred texts - and their presence indicates that we are not required to take every word of the non-scriptural readings literally.

No, but neither should we necessarily dismiss them out-of-hand as employing nothing BUT literary devices.

 

[LilyM]

Well, I wouldn’t think of that as referring to a man at all, but as a reference to Satan who has the power of death and will be destroyed ultimately by Christ (and he knows it). So by my logic that would reflect the authentic faith of the Church.

But still not a literal man, of course, which is my point.

Adam, however is not a metaphor, but an actual man. (Ever hear of being patronizing?)

Jerusalem and Israel are both real places. They are often, however, used in scripture as metaphors for the people of God and His heavenly kingdom.

A flag is a real object, but it is at the same time a symbol of something else - a country, a state, a city.

And if I say someone ‘spits on the flag’ I can mean it in an entirely symbolic way - for example I can apply it merely to someone who makes a derogatory comment about my country - even though someone can literally spit on a flag too.

So the issue of symbol or metaphor v real person/object/action isn’t as cut and dried as you think.

We are, however, required to believe Adam (i.e., the first man) existed, and the belief in his salvation as presented in the reading from Holy Saturday seems quite consonant with the belief of the Church.

Consonant, sure. Belief in limbo for the unbaptised is quite consonant with the teachings of the church. It isn’t, however, required belief - because the opposite belief (that the unbaptised don’t in fact go to any ‘limbo’ state) is also consonant with the teachings of the church.

And because BOTH beliefs are consonant, we can’t posit one to be absolute truth, but must restrict ourselves to saying ‘I believe in/don’t believe in limbo’, ‘xyz theologians taught that limbo exists/doesn’t exist’ and the like.

No, but neither should we necessarily dismiss them out-of-hand as employing nothing BUT literary devices.

Saying something isn’t certain and therefore can’t be called true in any sense of the word is very different to dismissing its possibility out of hand.

I don’t, for example, have a firm position one way or the other on limbo, as it’s not a question I’ve given a lot of thought to or done a lot of research on. So I wouldn’t dismiss the arguments for its existence OR those for its non-existence out of hand.

However, I would be critical of anyone who simply said ‘Yes, of course it exists’ or ‘No, of course it doesn’t’ as if the matter was settled. The church in its wisdom has reserved judgement and not declared positively one way or the other. We can do no less if we would be truly wise, just as it is wise not to give too much credence to unapproved apparitions and the like.

 

[Mintaka]

Adam and Eve, like the OT patriarchs and prophets, are in the Roman calendar of saints which may be remembered on their own day. It doesn’t happen very often, because most of the patriarchal saints share their day with greater holy days and feasts.

St. Adam (aka St. Adam the Patriarch) and St. Eve (aka St. Eve the Matriarch) are celebrated on Dec. 24. Adam is a patron saint of gardeners, and both Adam and Eve are patron saints of tailors. The most famous church dedicated to Adam and Eve was a chapel in the port area of Dublin, but there have been others. (There’d probably be more, but Dec. 24 makes for a pretty cold festival day, unless you’re in Australia.)

saints.sqpn.com/adam-the-patriarch/
saints.sqpn.com/eve-the-matriarch/

Like the readings of the Liturgy of the Hours, the saints that the Church celebrates are in fact part of the deposit of faith and the Magisterium. You do have an obligation to believe them. Or you might consider the teaching of some of the most ancient hymns of the Church, which sing extensively about the patriarchs getting out of Hades/Sheol.

But if you don’t believe all that, surely you believe it when the Apostle’s Creed makes such a big thing out of “He descended into hell” (aka Sheol/Hades/Abraham’s Bosom).

Surely you believe it when 1 Peter 3:19 talks about Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison? What did you think that was all about?

Why would He bother to preach, if it were not meant to convert these people in prison? Do you think God sends out His Word in order to have no effect? No, of course not. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “He descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits in prison there.” He opened Heaven’s gates to the just who were held there in Abraham’s Bosom, and the Church has always taught that the Patriarchs and Matriarchs were part of that.

1 Peter 4:6 reiterates that “The Gospel was preached even to the dead.” John 5:25 says “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” The Book of Revelation says that Christ holds the keys of Death and Hades.

I don’t understand why you insist on not believing good tidings of great joy, especially when they fulfill the very first prophecies of the Bible, and the whole thrust of the Gospel.

These, our First Parents, were dead, but now they are alive. The Father went running to meet them.

Do not be unbelieving, but believe!

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

The question wasn’t about official Church teaching it was about what I think. They are in heaven that’s is what I think. There is a lot more to our faith than just official church teaching and the catholic tradition is that they are in heaven so I will go with the tradition and believe in the truthfulness of that tradition, I do not need an infallible pronouncement on something to believe it with absolute certainty, and so it is that I can truthfully say Adam and Eve are definitely in heaven.

 

[fhansen]

I agree with LilyM that we have no idea about the fate of Adam & Eve. There may well be a sort of tradition about their being heaven-bound or saints but I don’t believe they were ever canonized so we can’t know for sure. And I never meant to say otherwise.

OTOH, I was surprised to receive such a strong response about my short answer. My reply to the OP, “nope”, was meant to be a response so curt and flip that it might, if nothing else, elicit a question from the OP, rather than commentary from anyone. If questioned I had planned to give my opinion on the matter, which I later did.

I still feel that Adam & Even were at the least no more to blame than the rest of humankind-that they sort of acted in proxy for us and that, if we were truly better, we wouldn’t be re-committing OS each in our own way everyday.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I agree with LilyM that we have no idea about the fate of Adam & Eve. There may well be a sort of tradition about their being heaven-bound or saints but I don’t believe they were ever canonized so we can’t know for sure. And I never meant to say otherwise.

OTOH, I was surprised to receive such a strong response about my short answer. My reply to the OP, “nope”, was meant to be a response so curt and flip that it might, if nothing else, elicit a question from the OP, rather than commentary from anyone. If questioned I had planned to give my opinion on the matter, which I later did.

I still feel that Adam & Even were at the least no more to blame than the rest of humankind-that they sort of acted in proxy for us and that, if we were truly better, we wouldn’t be re-committing OS each in our own way everyday.

The Chruch doesn’t canonise people from the old testament times because the Church did not exist back then but they are still recognised as saints.

 

[fhansen]

The Chruch doesn’t canonise people from the old testament times because the Church did not exist back then but they are still recognised as saints.

IMO they’re in heaven, and I surely hope so in any case! But we’ll know it all in time…

 

[Mintaka]

This is a pretty full list of Old Testament saints on the Roman calendar.

saints.sqpn.com/category/saints-mentioned-in-the-old-testament/

We really, really need to get the word out more about what the Church has always taught and still teaches: that the Patriarchs were saved by Christ’s “descent into hell”,* and are saints in Heaven. Another thing people have forgotten in the last forty years.

• Except maybe Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, who probably all got assumed into Heaven instead of going to Abraham’s Bosom.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.” Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”

"Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . “I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.”

 

[LilyM]

Why would He bother to preach, if it were not meant to convert these people in prison? Do you think God sends out His Word in order to have no effect? No, of course not. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “He descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits in prison there.” He opened Heaven’s gates to the just who were held there in Abraham’s Bosom, and the Church has always taught that the Patriarchs and Matriarchs were part of that.

Jesus preached to the souls of the dead, of course, as He preached to the living. He meant to convert all the dead, as He did all the living. Did all the living accept His message and gain their salvation? Of course not. So why assume that all the dead DID? Were none of the dead unrepentant sinners of hardened hearts? It’s nonsense to imagine so.

Yes, Jesus opened Heaven’s gates - TO THE JUST. Were all the patriarchs just? In other words ALL the people from whom Christ was bodily descended? Without exception? That’s a strange idea - it included some very wicked and scoundrelly Kings of Israel for starters.

Reason would suggest that of course some of them weren’t, they were as human and liable to sin as anyone else. Why would the mere fact of Christ’s bodily descent from them somehow give them all magical protection from sin and assurance of salvation?

 

[Mintaka]

Btw, tomorrow (July 13) is St. Joel’s Day, as in Joel the prophet.

 

[Mintaka]

It’s not about some magical genetic power. It’s about simple information. If all of Christian tradition and teaching says, “Yeah, those specific guys are in Heaven now, and a lot of unnamed folks from the Bible and the entire history of the world were saved also,” it’s pretty obvious that they are. They listened to Christ and believed and followed Him, and they are in Heaven praying for us.

I don’t understand why you find this so hard. Do you spend a lot of time being sure that St. Joseph is burning in Hell, or wondering whether or not he is? The Bible never says anything about his eternal fate; it’s Christian tradition that says he is a saint in Heaven. Fairly early Christian tradition, too, just like with the Patriarchs.

There’s a vast amount of info that Jesus gave the Apostles as part of His teaching, both before and after His Resurrection, and a vast amount of info that the Holy Spirit gave the early Church as well. If you’re not going to trust anything but what was written down, you’re choking off your own oxygen of Catholic teaching.

 

[LilyM]

It’s not about some magical genetic power. It’s about simple information. If all of Christian tradition and teaching says, “Yeah, those specific guys are in Heaven now,” it’s pretty obvious that they are.

I don’t understand why you find this so hard. Do you spend a lot of time being sure that St. Joseph is burning in Hell, or wondering whether or not he is? The Bible never says anything about his eternal fate; it’s Christian tradition that says he is a saint in Heaven. Fairly early Christian tradition, too, just like with the Patriarchs.

Why should you be surprised that I find it hard to accept Church teaching that we are to be exceedingly wary of pronouncing on the fate of individual souls? That extreme danger lies in assuming all and sundry to be in heaven - danger of understating the very real idea of Hell and the very real teaching of Our Lord that most people end up there?

We are safe in recognising saints canonised by the Popes, true. But even with those canonised by popular acclaim we are occasionally on dodgy ground - example being St Christopher, whose cult has actually been suppressed by the Church.

St Joseph, by contrast, has very strong and solid tradition and teaching about him dating back to earliest times. And very solid endorsement of his cult by the Magisterium. Moreover there is solid scriptural support for the idea of his salvation, he being described as a just and righteous man in the Gospels, a title never granted to Adam and Eve. So we are on far safer ground with him.