Adam and Eve

[Tim_D]

Do you realize that official Catholics doctrines are properly defined and duly declared by official major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit? There is a lot of time in preparation for a Council which includes serious time in studying Sacred Scripture. The final discussion uses chapter and verse as evidence of Divine Revelation.

Have you looked at the footnotes in the CCC for the scripture used as a base for parts of a particular paragraph?

Have you looked at pages 689-720 of the CCC Index of Citations which gives the chapter and verse that is used in CCC paragraphs?

Have you heard homilies based on the Scripture readings in that day’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

Are you familiar with the Apostles’ Creed which beings with the scripture verse, Genesis 1:1. This same verse is expressed loudly in the beginning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The Christian faith, specifically the Catholic faith, does not arise from the Bible. The faith and the Church existed before the canon of scripture was codified. Scripture is an indispensable part of the Church’s Tradition but it is not the well spring. Doctrine arises through the discipline of theology. Did no one believe that Jesus was God until the Gospels were written? Of course not. And the same can be said for the other tenants of faith that we hold dear.

 

[Bookcat]

The Christian faith, specifically the Catholic faith, does not arise from the Bible. The faith and the Church existed before the canon of scripture was codified. Scripture is an indispensable part of the Church’s Tradition but it is not the well spring. Doctrine arises through the discipline of theology. Did no one believe that Jesus was God until the Gospels were written? Of course not. And the same can be said for the other tenants of faith that we hold dear.

Yes the Church pre-existed the New Testament and the canon.

But I would not go so far as to say that Doctrine per se arises through the disciple of theology. That is putting the cart before the horse to use a mundane saying.

Catechism:

131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”…

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology…

 

[cfauster]

According to Catholic teaching, are Adam and Eve actually the first human beings, or are they symbols of the first human beings? Relevant quotes of the bible or church documents would be appreciated.

The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology is helpful:

"How are we, sophisticated, 21st-century Catholics that we are, supposed to read the account of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace in Genesis 3 - with its fable-like setting, its talking trickster snake, its gullible couple, oddly named trees, and forbidden fruit?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us some good advice here:

“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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (see no. 390).

What’s the Catechism getting at here? First, the story in Genesis 3 is written in “figurative language” - it’s more like poetry than journalism, more like a painting than a documentary film.

Nevertheless, the story “affirms” an actual event that indeed “took place” at the beginning of human history. What’s more, that event, “the original fault” of Adam and Eve, forever “marked” human history.

We can’t, then, read Genesis 3 like we’re reading a newspaper. But we can’t read it like it’s a myth or a fairy tale or a fable - as if it’s about something that never happened.

Scholars tell us that Genesis is best understood as an example of the ancient literary style know as mashal - “a riddle” or a “proverb” in which there are layers of double meaning.

And when we read Genesis 3 closely, we find the story turns on a number of tricky passages, and words filled with multiple meanings: life, death, wise, trees."

The above comes from
stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-creation-fall-and-promise

See also
stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-from-sabbath-to-flood

 

[Tim_D]

Yes the Church pre-existed the New Testament and the canon.

But I would not go so far as to say that Doctrine per se arises through the disciple of theology. That is putting the cart before the horse to use a mundane saying.

Catechism:

131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”…

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology…

These quotes have nothing to do with the nature and development of doctrine.

 

[Bookcat]

development of doctrine.

See the Catechism as well as other documents on Divine Revelation for more.

 

[Tim_D]

See the Catechism as well as other documents on Divine Revelation for more.

No thank you.

 

[fhansen]

These quotes have nothing to do with the nature and development of doctrine.

Yes, as the catechism teaches our faith is not a “religion of the book” first of all. Otherwise we’d be in the position of the Reformers and their progeny, basing beliefs on Scripture alone, then proceeding to argue among themselves over the meaning of Scripture. The Church has the sure means of understanding the faith simply because she was established at the beginning of Christianiy for that very purpose, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit always at hand.

 

[Bookcat]

Doctrine arises through the discipline of theology.

Thankfully Doctrine does not simply arise through the discipline of theology.

 

[Bookcat]

All this of late though is rather off topic.

 

[edwest2]

But I’m not quite sure of the point here because either way those “original two people, male and female”, by whatever names, were “real in the sense that George Washington was real” according to my understanding of Church teaching.

Yes, regardless of the names, Adam and Eve (by any interpretation) were the parents of all humans alive today. They were real like George Washington was real.

Ed

 

[Tim_D]

Thankfully Doctrine does not simply arise through the discipline of theology.

Not simply, no, but as fhansen says, we would be protestants if all of our doctrines were simply bible based. When speaking about Catholic beliefs, protestants love to say “where in the bible does it say that?” Are you suggesting that they have a point?

 

[Tim_D]

Yes, regardless of the names, Adam and Eve (by any interpretation) were the parents of all humans alive today. They were real like George Washington was real.

No, not by “any interpretation.” If one takes a completely literal interpretation of Genesis and uses that as literal historical fact, then that would be incorrect.

 

[edwest2]

Don’t see where any of this has any relevancy as to the literal and figurative aspects of Genesis. I hope that you are not suggesting that because the compendium uses the traditional telling from Genesis that that somehow means that the Church supports a literal interpretation, because that would simply be wrong.

No, it wouldn’t.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

The word “ensouled” is never used.

Ed

 

[Bookcat]

Not simply, no, but as fhansen says, we would be protestants if all of our doctrines were simply bible based. When speaking about Catholic beliefs, protestants love to say “where in the bible does it say that?” Are you suggesting that they have a point?

Your saying no to what is not written.

Read it again please.

 

[Tim_D]

No, it wouldn’t.

"Real History
Ed

You and Bookat’s penchant for endlessly posting long-winded quotes does very little to advance your argument.

 

[Tim_D]

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, **even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use. **

Which is exactly what the Church teaches. It does not say that Genesis 1 is literal history, nor does it deny the spiritual truths contained therein. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Note to the bolded: It is silly to think that 21st century Americans can read and interpret an ancient, non-Western text from at least 3500 years ago as if they are reading an article from the New York Times.

 

[Bookcat]

You and Bookat’s penchant for endlessly posting long-winded quotes does very little to advance your argument.

Wow you have created your very own ad hominum.

The quotes I gave - answer the the threads question.

 

[Bookcat]

Not simply, no, but as fhansen says, we would be protestants if all of our doctrines were simply bible based. When speaking about Catholic beliefs, protestants love to say “where in the bible does it say that?” Are you suggesting that they have a point?

Please read what was actually written. Nowhere was there any thing of the sort that you suggest said.

 

[Tim_D]

Wow you have created your very own ad hominum.

If people want to read the catechism, then they will read it. It doesn’t help a *discussion *board by endlessly posting long sections that do not have any relevance to the subject at hand.

The quotes I gave - answer the the threads question.

The please summarize for us: Does the Church teach a literal or figurative interpretation of the Genesis narrative?

 

[Tim_D]

Please read what was actually written. Nowhere was there any thing of the sort that you suggest said.

Yes, as the catechism teaches our faith is not a “religion of the book” first of all. Otherwise **we’d be in the position of the Reformers and their progeny, basing beliefs on Scripture alone, then proceeding to argue among themselves over the meaning of Scripture. **The Church has the sure means of understanding the faith simply **because she was established at the beginning of Christianiy for that very purpose, **with the guidance of the Holy Spirit always at hand.