P
patg
Guest
The concept of original sin is believed to be truth BUT the story which describes its origins is a symbolic myth and again, there is no requirement to hold a literalistic view of it. “Myth” is not a synonym for “false”.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
O.K. So what part of the Genesis version of original sin is real in that it actually happened?
P
patg
Guest
None or all or whatever you believe - the church places no requirements on this. To me, the answer is “None”.
As the catechism states,* without any comment on the “real” nature of the event*: "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. "… and “Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.”
G
grannymh
Guest
Actually, there is lots of comment on the “real” nature of the event.
Catholic Church teaching concerning the real nature of the “Adam” event is stated in more than the one paragraph. Pages 91 -105 (paragraphs 355 - 421) in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *ISBN: 1-57455-109-4, is a good place to start reading. Then check out the cross-references given in the margins.
Link to Catechism:
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
P
patg
Guest
Yes, there is lots of comment but nowhere in those teachings does the catechism mention that we are to believe anything related to the story actually happening as described in the bible. Yes, there is original sin. Yes, mankind suffers because of it. And no, there is no requirement to believe in magic trees or talking snakes.
B
buffalo
Guest
Except it has been Catholic teaching for 2000 years. But of course that bears little weight to dissenters.
B
buffalo
Guest
What was the author trying to convey about the Tree of Life?
G
grannymh
Guest
Excuse me. Who said anything about magic trees or talking snakes?
The Catechism’s paragraphs 355 - 421 contain truths, starting with the real existence of the first man. This is about all I can say since it is up to your free will to believe.
P
patg
Guest
I though you were disagreeing with me, - apparently not. Sorry for misinterpreting.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Why is it that those who disagree with the Church always seems to take such a militant tone? There is never a lot of love and mercy in their attitudes.
Be that as it may, I’ve been attending a series of Bible studies with a very devout priest who made a statement that has really helped me. He said that every word in the Bible is true, but not every word is historically accurate. In other words, everything the Bible teaches us about salvation, the nature of man and the nature of God is absolutely true, but the stories themselves may be more allegorical than historically accurate. So it’s possible that the story of the Garden of Eden didn’t happen exactly as portrayed in the Bible, but the truth of man rejecting God and choosing the way of sin and death is certainly true, and except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are all banned from the Tree of Life. That is the important point to take away from this story. And that is true of all the Bible.
That is the problem that the Protestants have. They feel that every word in the Bible is not only true, but historically accurate, and because of that, they leave themselves open to ridicule and statements as seen above. The Catholic Church has never believed in “sola scriputra”, and therefore the Catholic Church, if taken at her Word, has never been open to such ridicule.
G.K. Chesterton, perhaps the greatest Catholic writer of the 20th Century, always said his favorite stories were fairy tales because the truth can always be found in fairy tales. Whether the story of the Garden of Eden or any other story in the Bible is completely, 100% historically accurate is irrelevant - God’s Eternal Truth is found there, and that is what is important.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Why is it that those who claim to agree with the Church avoid specifics?
Did the children of Adam and Eve commit incest to obey God’s command to be fruitful and multiply?
I.e., was incest ever a virtue?
G
geometer
Guest
Adam and Eve could not have commited incest. How could they?
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Re-read my post, friend. “Did the CHILDREN of Adam and Eve…”
B
buffalo
Guest
Incest between brother and sister is not intrinsically evil as it does not violate natural law. Incest between parent and children is intrinsically evil.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
You are wrong. The incest taboo, as to siblings, is part of Natural Law. See Deuteronomy 27:22, and Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which all agree covers Deuteronomy 27:22. It is “already in your mouths and in your hearts” because it is part of the innate fundamental moral sense – our conscience.
You are simply wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
Consanguinity (in Canon Law)
Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive. The term consanguinity here means, within certain limitations defined by the law of nature, the positive law of God, or the supreme authority of State or Church, the blood-relationship (cognatio naturalis), or the natural bond between persons descended from the same stock. In view of the recognized descent of all men from one common stock, there is a general blood-relationship between all men; hence the limitation mentioned has reference to the nearest root or source of consanguinity. This bond or union of blood takes place in one case through the descent of one person from the other; this is called the direct line. In another case it takes place because the common blood is drawn from a common root, the same ancestor, from whom both persons descend, though they do not descend one from the other, and are therefore not in a direct but in a transverse or collateral line. By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.
History of impediment
Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve, it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature; otherwise the propagation of the human race would have begun by violation of the natural law. It is readily understood that, considering the freedom of intercourse between such persons, some effort would soon be made (in the interest of the social welfare) to prevent early corruption within the close family circle by placing a bar to the hope of marriage. Hence among all peoples there has arisen a natural repugnance to the marriage of brother and sister. Some theologians suppose herein a positive Divine law, but it is not easy to point out any such early Divine enactment. Abraham married Sarah who was his sister by his father, though of a different mother (Genesis 11; cf. Genesis 20:12). Marriage was allowed at Athens with half-sisters by the same father (Plutarch, Cim., iv; Themist., xxxii), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Philo, De Special. Leg., tr. Yonge, III, 306), and with full-sisters in Egypt (Diodorus Siculus, I, 27) and Persia, as illustrated in the well-known instances of the Ptolemies in the former, and of Cambyses in the latter, country (Herodian, III, 31). For a good summary of non-Christian customs in this respect see Melody, “Marriage of Near Kin” in “Catholic University Bulletin” (Washington, Jan., 1903, pp. 40-60).
more…
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
The Catholic Church’s own Scriptural verses which I pointed out have more authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia.
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status