Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[buffalo]

1. 
   *] *The first man was created by God. (De fide.) **
   ] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) **
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   ] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   ] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) **
   ] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.) **
   ] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.) **
   ] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) **
   ] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) **
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) **
   ] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) **
   ] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788. **
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[grannymh]

Our parish e-mail prayer tree includes an inspirational line at the bottom. This morning I read Psalm 16:11-- You will show me the path to life, abounding joy in Your presence, the delights at Your right hand forever.

I can imagine Adam saying something similar as part of his relationship with his Creator.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

One needs to understand that most, not all, of life is a both…and situation. But, a both…and situation does not necessarily mean that both are equal or are the same or one is part of the other. Understanding both… and situations is one of the main ways to learning why my green grass example does not make sense. My professor was teaching us how to think in real life.

If one is to understand the Salvific Way to God, then one has to take into consideration the practical details of both God’s world of the spiritual (non-material) and natural science (material) of the universe.

May I answer your comments about both…and before continuing with my reply?

The both…and caused me no trouble. I agree.
But the “practical details” is what puzzled me most.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

From granny’s post 338.

“The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.”

Above all, I appreciate honesty (phrased charitably) in a discussion. Thank you.

As a child, I observed my parents solving problems in parish life from a both…and perspective. Currently, one of my sons uses the both…and approach successively in negotiating certain kinds of compromises within businesses. I view the first three chapters of Genesis as containing both Catholic doctrine and analogical teaching.

As I review the two sentences I wrote in post 338, I can only say that they are the shortest explanation of “both…and” that I have ever attempted.

Because of family events, I may not get back to CAF promptly. In addition, what I consider as an intellectual tool (both/and) is not popular on CAF. Too often, posts on Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis present an “either…or” position. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the “mutually exclusive or”. Only that is not easy to do.
Nonetheless, I believe it is important to hash it out, i.e., take the time to carefully review ways to approach both the first three chapters of Genesis and the corresponding Catholic doctrines.

In my humble opinion, this would help clear up the use of the word “mythology” when used in reference to the real Adam and Eve.

Sorry, I could not get it again.
Better ask questions:
the first sentence says that the physical site of Adam and Eve doe snot belong to the Catholic Doctrine.
And then, (apparently in contradiction) says the 2nd sentence that they lived a life of lovely joy and beauty there).
That is my problem with the 2 questions.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

1. 
   ] The first man was created by God. (De fide.) **
   ] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   ] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   ] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   ] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   ] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   ] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   ] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   ] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.) **
   ] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.) **
   ] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) **
   ] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) **
   ] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   ] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   ] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   ] Our first parents **became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

1. 
   Maybe those sentences need re-interpretation, no?

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, I could not get it again.
Better ask questions:
the first sentence says that the physical site of Adam and Eve doe snot belong to the Catholic Doctrine.
And then, (apparently in contradiction) says the 2nd sentence that they lived a life of lovely joy and beauty** there**).
That is my problem with the 2 questions.

Thank you for your valid questioning. Questioning and questioning is how we came to our current scientific knowledge of the material/physical domain.

In post 336, Julia Mae posted this very interesting link as an example of discussion in science. It is a great example of questioning.
genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full

The authors, James F. Crow and William F. Dove discuss controversies in the evolution theory with references to specific scientists. What is especially interesting to me personally is the discussion of the history of the “bottleneck” theory. This discussion includes references to specific scientific research and presented theories with different speculations on both sides of a controversy.

Obviously, this article is about “populations” in the scientific domain. Because the focus of the scientific method is on material cell-based anatomies, there is no way that this type of research could distinguish Adam and Eve from the rest of the population under study.

Excuse my digression. When I was first learning evolution theory from a CAF atheist scientist, it was suggested that if I wanted to learn evolution, I had to look up Motoo Kimura. In doing so, I found James F. Crow, professor emeritus of genetics, the University of Wisconsin. Science is not set in stone.

I will get back to your post 352 when I return.

 

[buffalo]

Maybe those sentences need re-interpretation, no?

De Fide and Sent Certa needs re-interpretation? Good Luck.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for your valid questioning. Questioning and questioning is how we came to our current scientific knowledge of the material/physical domain.

In post 336, Julia Mae posted this very interesting link as an example of discussion in science. It is a great example of questioning.
genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full

The authors, James F. Crow and William F. Dove discuss controversies in the evolution theory with references to specific scientists. What is especially interesting to me personally is the discussion of the history of the “bottleneck” theory. This discussion includes references to specific scientific research and presented theories with different speculations on both sides of a controversy.

Obviously, this article is about “populations” in the scientific domain. Because the focus of the scientific method is on material cell-based anatomies, there is no way that this type of research could distinguish Adam and Eve from the rest of the population under study.

Excuse my digression. When I was first learning evolution theory from a CAF atheist scientist, it was suggested that if I wanted to learn evolution, I had to look up Motoo Kimura. In doing so, I found James F. Crow, professor emeritus of genetics, the University of Wisconsin. Science is not set in stone.

I will get back to your post 352 when I return.

One of the difficulties with news articles which mention Adam and Eve is that they can invoke strong feelings about both science and Catholic Faith. While I cannot change anyone’s feelings, I can offer a different perspective for consideration.

To get a better perspective about one of the giants in evolutionary genetics, I am posting this link about the late James F. Crow. news.wisc.edu/20193

When I first started exploring Adam and Eve and the evolution model, as a nobody, I e-mailed Professor Crow. He graciously responded to my questions. (I am still a nobody who still asks questions via e-mail.)

Catholics, who are intimidated by the mountains of evidence against our first parents need to realize two things. 1. There are many sincere, honest women and men who are seeking knowledge about human nature and its origin. 2. Genetic research is centered on the basic cell structure of the material human anatomy. Genetic research cannot touch the immaterial, spiritual soul.

Darwin’s position, that all living organisms are different material forms from basically material sources, is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding points of view to include both the material and non-material reality of humankind, the distinguishing uniqueness of the human species was eliminated. Consequently, man was considered a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities. The reasoning was that science, by definition, was limited to the natural world. This definition is now used to exclude the non-material, spiritual component of human nature.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Once a person realizes that those mountains of evidence are restricted to the material/physical world, then one is free to explore the spiritual world of God.

 

[grannymh]

From post 338 “The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.”

Sorry, I could not get it again.
Better ask questions:
the first sentence says that the physical site of Adam and Eve doe snot belong to the Catholic Doctrine.
And then, (apparently in contradiction) says the 2nd sentence that they lived a life of lovely joy and beauty there).
That is my problem with the 2 questions.

Finally, in the logic course, I learned the importance of testing the practical details

The problem is the insertion of the word “there” (which I put in bold) or perhaps you made the assumption that the word “there” should have been inserted. In any case, the second sentence does not have a “there”.

Try removing the assumed “there”…

And then put numbers in front of each sentence as if the two sentences are part of a list.
1.The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine.
2.The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.

Looking at the practical details of each sentence. Both sentence 1. and sentence 2. are true.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

De Fide and Sent Certa needs re-interpretation? Good Luck.

The Bible needs interpretation or can we interpret Protestant way, the way we want?
Is De Fide superior to the Bible?
So the Bible needs interpretation, De Fide not?
Good Luck !

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thank you for your valid questioning. Questioning and questioning is how we came to our current scientific knowledge of the material/physical domain.

In post 336, Julia Mae posted this very interesting link as an example of discussion in science. It is a great example of questioning.
genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full

The authors, James F. Crow and William F. Dove discuss controversies in the evolution theory with references to specific scientists. What is especially interesting to me personally is the discussion of the history of the “bottleneck” theory. This discussion includes references to specific scientific research and presented theories with different speculations on both sides of a controversy.

Obviously, this article is about “populations” in the scientific domain. Because the focus of the scientific method is on material cell-based anatomies, there is no way that this type of research could distinguish Adam and Eve from the rest of the population under study.

Excuse my digression. When I was first learning evolution theory from a CAF atheist scientist, it was suggested that if I wanted to learn evolution, I had to look up Motoo Kimura. In doing so, I found James F. Crow, professor emeritus of genetics, the University of Wisconsin. Science is not set in stone.

I will get back to your post 352 when I return.

You go deeper than me.
Sorry, I will not accompany you for it is within my realm of interest.
But, for you…good investigation…!!!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

From post 338 “The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.”

Finally, in the logic course, I learned the importance of testing the practical details

The problem is the insertion of the word “there” (which I put in bold) or perhaps you made the assumption that the word “there” should have been inserted. In any case, the second sentence does not have a “there”.

Try removing the assumed “there”…

And then put numbers in front of each sentence as if the two sentences are part of a list.
1.The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine.
2.The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.

Looking at the practical details of each sentence. Both sentence 1. and sentence 2. are true.

Oh! I got it faster than I thought.
So. first point I agree.
Not the second one. That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God’s Grace.
My view.

 

[grannymh]

You go deeper than me.
Sorry, I will not accompany you for it is within my realm of interest.
But, for you…good investigation…!!!

I needed to go deeper because in that area, my own faith was shaken. We are not all the same kind of sheep. Yet, Jesus the Good Shepherd loves each of us beyond that which can be scientifically imagined.

I have read some painful posts of Catholics who were not sure how to react to the loud voices of interpreters of scientific research. That is why I try to demonstrate that science has a place in our world, but it is a limited place. While the OP post is very short, it represents the concerns of many people. The Australian article points out how some people are trying to deal with science. In my humble opinion, there is a both …and. We need to both respect science and follow the sound teachings of Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

Oh! I got it faster than I thought.
So. first point I agree.
Not the second one. That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God’s Grace.
My view.

Here you go deeper than me. Thank you.

As I study your words, I have this idea to share with you. I have often heard the concept that the story about Adam is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world. Cardinal Pell is not original with that reasoning.

Yes, there is a need to understand evil and suffering. The Cardinal is correct in that suffering human death is tied to Adam. However, according to the ancient teachings of Catholicism, death, which is real, is tied to the real action of the first real human. The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1 .footnote 293 for paragraph 404 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

It is my observation that it is important to understand Adam both before his action *and *afterwards.

Your words from post 360 – “That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God’s Grace.” – This is what people should focus on, especially in our current world.

 

[grannymh]

As I am working through various issues involving the reality of two first parents known biblically as Adam and Eve…

I wonder how a Catholic comes to the conclusion that scientific research is the ultimate authority regarding the origin of human nature.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I needed to go deeper because in that area, my own faith was shaken. We are not all the same kind of sheep. Yet, Jesus the Good Shepherd loves each of us beyond that which can be scientifically imagined.

I have read some painful posts of Catholics who were not sure how to react to the loud voices of interpreters of scientific research. That is why I try to demonstrate that science has a place in our world, but it is a limited place. While the OP post is very short, it represents the concerns of many people. The Australian article points out how some people are trying to deal with science. In my humble opinion, there is a both …and. We need to both respect science and follow the sound teachings of Catholicism.

Look. I respect science. My Father was a doctor and my eldest too. With My Father I learnt to see God in every bit and piece of science. My Father had a friend who was totally atheist. They remained good friends till death. When they were at Medical School, in the point where My Father found the proof of God, my Father’s friend found a proof that God did not exist.
My Father was a person with humor. Once, we were eating an egg and he said: Look, Son, this is the best proof of the existence of God!". Where are the feathers, the bones, the meat of the chick that would be born in this egg hatched for 28 days! And on and on. Once we were in the top of a building and seeing all those old antenas for TV. And he said: “Some people say that God cannot be everywhere! Look, Son, the TV image is everywhere!” I watched him with wonder. And…I miss him…
So, I learnt you cannot prove anything to an atheist by studying science. You find 1000 proofs of the existence of God and he finds 1001 proofs of the non-existence of God.
You see God because you have got a pair of colored lens different from the pair of lenses of the atheist. And both refuse to exchange lens. So one sees it white and the other sees it black.
I defend that: 1) God created everything; 2) God created the individual Human Soul or Spirit or “I” or “me”.
Now, if the Body came from outer spacy in a galaxy vehicle at the speed of light and parachuted into EArth or whether it came from snails or whales, I could not care less. I find it … funny. It is so complex that I do not go over there…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Here you go deeper than me. Thank you.

As I study your words, I have this idea to share with you. I have often heard the concept that the story about Adam is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world. Cardinal Pell is not original with that reasoning.

Yes, there is a need to understand evil and suffering. The Cardinal is correct in that suffering human death is tied to Adam. However, according to the ancient teachings of Catholicism, death, which is real, is tied to the real action of the first real human. The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1 .footnote 293 for paragraph 404 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

It is my observation that it is important to understand Adam both before his action *and *afterwards.

Your words from post 360 – “That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God’s Grace.” – This is what people should focus on, especially in our current world.

The Bible is a Faith Book, so teaches us Faith.
Obviously, the writers of the Bible, of the Pentateuch, the first books of the Bible, they were not scientists, clear as water…
But they were inspired by God.
And they told us very important things. Not in a scientific form, which is boring, but is the shape of a midrash. Midrash in the Jewish tradition is a tale with a meaning. I never use the term myth for it is greek and confused with the greek gods.
So, inspired by God, they said wonderful things:

1. They said that it is not natural the state of suffering and sin in man. So, as they relized that sometimes the evil of parents passes on to children (a drunk mother produces crazy sons) they started to think that my evil came from my father from his father from his father…so the first evil must have come from somebody whom they gave the name of Adam. Of course it was written by Man so they could not accept that the first eveilcame from the Male. It came, obviously, from the female, the eternal temptrice. The woman, the evil of all
2. An so, they realized that SIN and DEATH was not natural. And they said: “Oh! Before it was not like that!” . We suffer from sin. And isn’t it true? Protitution, murders, adultery and so on, all produce suffering. Of course, there is a remaining suffering that we do not know where it comes, as seen in the Book of Job and in the cross of Jesus.
3. They concluded that some sin is not our fault. The son of thieves is a thief. He learnt it that way. Not his fault.
4. But there are sins that are our fault. Adam and Eve sinned through our fault…

This told in the Yahwist and Elohist Tradition (if you are not familiar it is worth investigating the 4 traditions of the Pentateuch, moreth Deuteronomist and the ??? Priesthood ???.

Wonderful.

Now, discussin science with people who wrote the Pentaeuch in 1500 aC??? Not fair !!!

 

[grannymh]

The Bible is a Faith Book, so teaches us Faith.
Obviously, the writers of the Bible, of the Pentateuch, the first books of the Bible, they were not scientists, clear as water…
But they were inspired by God.
And they told us very important things. Not in a scientific form, which is boring, but is the shape of a midrash. Midrash in the Jewish tradition is a tale with a meaning. I never use the term myth for it is greek and confused with the greek gods.
So, inspired by God, they said wonderful things:

1. They said that it is not natural the state of suffering and sin in man. So, as they relized that sometimes the evil of parents passes on to children (a drunk mother produces crazy sons) they started to think that my evil came from my father from his father from his father…so the first evil must have come from somebody whom they gave the name of Adam. Of course it was written by Man so they could not accept that the first eveilcame from the Male. It came, obviously, from the female, the eternal temptrice. The woman, the evil of all
2. An so, they realized that SIN and DEATH was not natural. And they said: “Oh! Before it was not like that!” . We suffer from sin. And isn’t it true? Protitution, murders, adultery and so on, all produce suffering. Of course, there is a remaining suffering that we do not know where it comes, as seen in the Book of Job and in the cross of Jesus.
3. They concluded that some sin is not our fault. The son of thieves is a thief. He learnt it that way. Not his fault.
4. But there are sins that are our fault. Adam and Eve sinned through our fault…

This told in the Yahwist and Elohist Tradition (if you are not familiar it is worth investigating the 4 traditions of the Pentateuch, moreth Deuteronomist and the ??? Priesthood ???.

Wonderful.

Now, discussin science with people who wrote the Pentaeuch in 1500 aC??? Not fair !!!

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

 

[Julia_Mae]

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

“The final redactor explain Catholic doctrines?” You mean 500 years before Jesus was born? And none of the many hands that worked on the Scripture would have been explaining anything. That’s not what redacting is. That’s what commentaries are for. There were a lot of commentaries. They aren’t Scripture. The CCC is a commentary, essentially.

So, I am very confused about what you are asking, exactly.

The first 13 chapters of Genesis comprise the traditions of the northern and southern kingdoms, which were theoretically combined during the last Babylonian exile.

 

[grannymh]

“The final redactor explain Catholic doctrines?” You mean 500 years before Jesus was born? And none of the many hands that worked on the Scripture would have been explaining anything. That’s not what redacting is. That’s what commentaries are for. There were a lot of commentaries. They aren’t Scripture. The CCC is a commentary, essentially.

So, I am very confused about what you are asking, exactly.

The first 13 chapters of Genesis comprise the traditions of the northern and southern kingdoms, which were theoretically combined during the last Babylonian exile.

To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

As for the final redactor, I use the commentary on the Book of Genesis, Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible. It says – “Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions (see Introduction to the Pentateuch)”. The commentary (introduction) to the Pentateuch included the Deuteronomic (D) strand. Apparently the "redactor(s) were the hands-on people who put together the text. However, they did it, their job was to present the truth of Divine Revelation. It is the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis which became Catholic Doctrines.

Maybe it would be less confusing if I had asked how did the final redactor explain Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis?

On the other hand, it became the job of the Catholic Church to both teach and protect Divine Revelation as Catholic doctrines, also known as the Catholic Deposit of Faith. A good example is St. Paul in his letter to the Romans, Chapter five. Given the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth, I will keep my original question as is.

From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
“How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?”