W
wiggbuggie
Guest
does the church require us to believe their was an adam and original sin? In Pauls letters seems like he believed man originated from one pair through one man sin came. (Edited)
- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
- (Edited)
ICXC NIKA
R
Richca
Guest
Yes, you can read this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent defined the following in its decree concerning original sin:
- If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
- If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
- If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
T
truetofaith
Guest
I believe evolution is still a theory, not a fact.
R
Richca
Guest
The Church also teaches that every human spiritual soul is created immediately by God (cf. CCC#366). So, the first man Adam, was immediately created by God at least to his rational, spiritual soul. The human spiritual soul is not the product of genetics, biology, matter, the physical forces of nature, or evolution. The origin of the human body is another question. The Church through the encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, has left this question open to free research by natural scientists and theologians.
Ludwig Ott, author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, says that “Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul [of Adam] into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body.”(page 95). This body could have possibly evolved over thousands of years.
The idea that God created the spiritual soul of Adam in an animal body appears to be foreign to the immediate, literal sense of Genesis which states that “the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground.” This idea is also foreign to the Fathers of the Church. Of course, the Church does not deny that God may have created Adam’s body immediately from inorganic material (the dust of the ground) and infused the spiritual soul into it “and blew into his nostrils the breath of life.” This is the interpretation I prefer and we as catholics can certainly hold to it and believe it. However, since I submit to the teaching authority of the Church, it is not against the faith for a catholic to hold some other interpretation of the formation of Adam’s body such as what I said above from Ludwig Ott. At present, the Church has not made a definitive judgement one way or the other.
The evidence you are speaking about is not conclusive. The whole idea is a theory which involves many assumptions. A theory today that may be gone tomorrow. No modern scientist was an actual observer of what was going on thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago to know for certain what actually took place. On the other hand, God knows for certain what took place in ages past and Holy Scripture, which is the word of God, reveals to us certain truth.
T
truetofaith
Guest
If God took an animal and made Adam from it…why didn’t He just say that in Genesis?
Simple enough!
Simple enough!
M
Mary_Estelle
Guest
Oh, I don’t know. I just know that Eve made Adam do it (eat the apple) that is. I have always wondered how Eve overpowered Adam and twisted his arm to get him to eat that apple. (Edited)
M
Mary_Estelle
Guest
Now then, to be serious and get into real deep water-and I can’t swim. I do believe in evolution to a certain point, but I believe that a critical moment that God imbued man with a soul and spirit and a working conscience. God can create as He wishes. How’s that for upsetting everyone and not having a life jacket?
R
Richca
Guest
Good point, exactly! This is one reason why I don’t believe in the idea of God infusing the spiritual soul of Adam or Eve into some kind of pre-existing animal body. Although God did take some material from Adam, namely, a rib, to create Eve.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here are some informative links about the credibility of a literal Adam and Eve. The possibility of interbreeding is part of the articles.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
This is a comprehensive book.
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette
This is a review of the book.
drbonnette.com/articles/6/evolution-micro-macro-book-review-wanderer/
This is a Catholic website
drbonnette.com/
V
Vico
Guest
New American Bible (NABRE)1 Timothy 2:11-14 11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.Oh, I don’t know. I just know that Eve made Adam do it (eat the apple) that is. I have always wondered how Eve overpowered Adam and twisted his arm to get him to eat that apple. I know, I know, a certain moderator does not like my sense of humor-sigh.Blame it on the serpent. Oh no, will I be banned?
St. John Chrysostom writes that Eve mad bad use of her equality with Adam and therefore God made her subject to her husband:
If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Your desire shall be to your husband?” Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before.
But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.
newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
In the late 20th century, the “Out of Africa” theory replaced the popular “Multi-regional” theory regarding humankind. This simply means that the population existing in Africa eventually migrated outward. Through genetic research, a conclusion was reached that mitochondrial DNA variants in our present population can be traced back to a woman in a rather large indiscriminate random breeding population. Obviously, she is not the woman in the Garden of Eden.
nature.com/scitable/blog/watching-the-detectives/all_about_mitochondrial_eve_interview
The idea that “interbreeding took place to form modern man” is a tad exaggerated.The evolution model is based on large populations developing into new large populations which go back millions of years. Thus, there are mostly general genetic speculations as to what actually happened, when, and why. It is the large populations part which oppose the Catholic doctrine that the originating human population is a population of two, Adam and Eve
The Neanderthal and some other species populations are closer to us in time and their fossils are all over the place. Here one needs to be very careful when one uses the term interbreeding. The relatively “current” interbreeding of Neanderthal and a couple of other species assumes it was with a modern human anatomy per se. The speculation is that ancient humans interbreed with these species so that their offspring carry some individual genes from both parents. Genes come from both parents so that it is possible that a child’s genes are not split equally between both parents. Currently, the popular possibility is that human descendants of Adam and Eve did interbreed somehow. The how is not definite.
In any case, the interbreeding would not involve the original first human being Adam who was created whole and entire on the spot. The spiritual soul which distinguishes humans from beasts does not evolve. As for Adam’s descendants, there are some theories which present the possibility of rare interbreeding with Neanderthals, etc. All it would take would be a few cases of rape to introduce some Neandethals genes into the human line or to provide those genes which are part of the current human genetic diversity.
I did the above because you mentioned interbreeding and Africa. The real reason is that there is not overwhelming evidence for the evolution model when it comes to human origin and human nature. Ants, plants, bears and bacteria can be part of the evolution model. But not us. There is a lot of missing data. While some evidence may lead to a probable conclusion, the evidence itself does not warrant the extrapolation to an universal denial of the possibility of a real sole true single set of parent founders of the human species.
Adam and Eve are real! Divine Revelation trumps!
W
wiggbuggie
Guest
I thought about the possibility of adam and eves kids interbreeding with other sub species of humans and I’m guessing the soul would be passed down to their kids since souls don’t evolve. That’s were cain would also get his wife from rather than incest since incest leads to birth complications and gene pool would be screwed up. Also the sub human species probably died out and adams line only survived us we humans. This could also be the possibility of the whole sons of god marrying into daughters of men things interbreeding not sure.
R
Richca
Guest
Interbreeding can also lead to birth complications, sterility, deformities, messed up gene pool and such can it not? Nor would it necessarily follow that supposing a few early humans actually interbreeded or were raped by some kind of sub-human species, that God would have infused a rational, spiritual soul into the offspring.
The children of Adam and Eve, the first couple and the first parents of the human race, would obviously have had to marry one another to perpetuate the human species but being that this was the beginning of the human race it would not have been considered a sin of incest at that time. And God could have certainly seen to it that the gene pool didn’t get messed up from brother and sister having sexual relations with one another and marrying.
T
truetofaith
Guest
Eve didn’t have to twist Adam’s arm…he wanted what the Tree of Knowledge offered!Oh, I don’t know. I just know that Eve made Adam do it(eat the apple)that is. I have always wondered how Eve overpowered Adam and twisted his arm to get him to eat that apple. I know, I know, a certain moderator does not like my sense of humor-sigh.
T
truetofaith
Guest
I’m very happy you didn’t write the Bible, wiggbuggie…it’s complicated now, I can only imagine how really screwed up it would be, if you did!
S
simpleas
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
I need to clarify the quote I took from Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” namely this, “Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul [of Adam] into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body.” This quote I made is in reference to Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical concerning the origin of the human body. It should be noted that in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII makes no mention of a possibility as envisaged by Ludwig Ott. The actual words from Pope Pius XII are the following:
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
Pope Pius XII says only the words “pre-existent and living matter.” This does not necessarily mean a whole organic animal body such as Ludwig Ott envisages.
Pope Pius XII continues in the encyclical:
“However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”
The footnote #11 Pope Pius XII points us too here is from an address that he himself gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1941. In this address, Pius XII said this: “Only from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man (Gen 2:23)”
Concerning the formation of Eve’s body, the Church teaches in accord with Holy Scripture, that the material for her body was taken from Adam’s body and more specifically from his side.
"the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man this one has been taken.” (Gen. 2:23).
Any form of evolution for Eve’s body is out of the question according to Catholic doctrine.
Here is an interesting link to an article from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation that pertains to the discussion here:
staycatholic.com/is_theistic_evolution_truly_plausible.htm
M
Mary_Estelle
Guest
Ah, the never ending loop of debate. Call me in fifty years or so and let me know how the debate turns out. Oops, I won’t be here waiting for that call. There are some mysteries that we don’t know and were not meant to know. It is like the search for “The God Particle.” It won’t be found as the search will go on into infinity. Or like the “Theory of Everything” or the “String Theory.” Another endless search/debate with an endless loop. Know what? I don’t care. I try to do and live as God requires of me; to live according to The Ten Commandments, The Beatitudes, and to have and worship the One True God and have not other Gods before me. The older I get the more I realize how much importance we place on fluff. I have a simplistic mind and it is pretty simple to me: try to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.
I think I will go to bed. My gray matter has been over taxed.:yawn:
I think I will go to bed. My gray matter has been over taxed.:yawn:
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
- Status