Adam, Eve, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ayden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since we’re getting into it, here’s a snippet of what I PM’d Ayden.

Anytime there’s a whiff of the word “polygenism” people come running, but based on the document HG, Pope Pius XII contextualizes his concern:
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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Click to expand...
The bolded text is the context I am providing. That, specifically, is what Pope Pius XII found objectionable about the talk of polygenism of his day, that it undermined the theological truths I bolded. He goes on to say “It is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled…” I’d like to state that this isn’t an absolute statement. It just means nothing he was aware of or was apparent to him could reconcile these details. It doesn’t dogmatically mean there isn’t a reconciliation out there, for what if we could affirm the bolded truths while still acknowledging a biological polygenism (if not a theological polygenism)?

End of what I sent Ayden

I don’t agree with you that there’s a contradiction with HG. For I do not propose that there existed any true men who did not take their descent from Adam by natural generation. Nor do I propose that the character of Adam in the story is representative of a number of first parents.
 
Last edited:
You don’t have to believe in Genesis literally to be a Christian. Only a small sect of fundamentalist creationists take it seriously.
 
Ayden said:
One of my favorite YouTubers, Bishop Barron, seems to affirm that Adam was not a real person.
Click to expand...
To be clear, Bishop Barron does NOT say that Adam was not a real person. What Bishop Barron subscribes to is the idea that the way the story is told is told though “theological poetry,” but he doesn’t claim that there was no Adam.
 
Yes but that’s creature would be a brand new creation from God.
 
BroIgnatius said:
That is one way that God could have done it. A creature is not “human with a soul” until God implants that soul (an image of Himself) in that creature. Thus, God could have allowed evolution to do its thing until a creature evolved with the brain capacity and the throat structure (need for language), and then chose that creature to be “Adam”. That creature then becomes a person, a human being with an immortal soul made in the image of God.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years and years. Good to know someone else thinks the same. Homo erectus (man who walks upright) when infused with reason and will (the image and likeness of God) becomes Homo Sapiens.
 
Ayden said:
He calls these early Genesis stories “theological poetry.” This has been my take on the text.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.

But “fictional”? It depends on what you mean by that. Should it be taken literally? No. Is it conveying a theological truth? Yes. God created the universe, and it is good. And so on. That’s the message.

As for “Adam,” the name in Hebrew simply means “Man.” So was the first human with a soul “Man”? Sure. Was that his actual name? Did his buddies call him Adam? No–that’s silly. But can we call him “Adam”? Why not? I don’t think he would care.

Does the theory of evolution insist that modern homo sapiens evolved from a small group? Some anthropologists think so. But others, including geneticists, believe there was one man whose genetic makeup changed enough to become “man” (or “Adam” if you want). After all, a mutation has to start with one being. The mutation was passed down to his descendants, and here we are, arguing about it. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that NECESSARILY conflicts with religion. Are there different interpretations of the theory of evolution and various detaills? Sure. Are there different theories of the origin of man in different religions? Sure. So what?
 
Last edited:
You may want to check out thomisticevolution.org They’ve got a lot of interesting stuff. I’m reading the book (which is just all the essays available online, but in book format) and there are even some things of note that I find intriguing that are aside from the evolution focus.
 
Last edited:
Good article, but it really does not apply to what I suggested.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Yes but that’s creature would be a brand new creation from God
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean. The body may be evolved, but the creation of a human being in the image of God is not created from body, but from soul. No body is a human being in the image of God until a soul is created for him.

After Adam, each person received their soul, created by God at the time of conception.
 
mVitus said:
You may want to check out thomisticevolution.org They’ve got a lot of interesting stuff. I’m reading the book (which is just all the essays available online, but in book format) and there are even some things of note that I find intriguing that are aside from the evolution focus.
Click to expand...
This site is saying the same thing I said, especially seen in this article
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Ron Conte, the author of the site I sent you above, says that there was evolving species for thousands of years but not humans with an intellect or free will like ours. Then at a certain point God created Adam and Eve separately from the earth which are now what we know to be humans like us with an intellect and will to know and love and serve God.
Click to expand...
Be careful there. Ron is often at odds with Church teaching and often puts his own spin on things. Nothing said at that site bears the Church’s Nihil Obstat.
He also has his own Bible translation which is not approved by the Church.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
This is not Scriptural.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is consistent with Biblical principle. It is flushed out by St. Aquinas.

Protestants think everything has to be in the bible explicitly. That is a fallacy not supported by the Bible. The Bible says that not all of Christ’s teachings are in the Bible (John 21:25) And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

That is why Christ established His Church under his Prime Minister, the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Thomistic theology of evolution of the body is pretty much St Aquinas’ Delayed Hominization isn’t it?
 
You’re missing the point. There are certain defined Church teachings. Since Humani Generis, the goal has been to water down some definitive teachings, along with Divine Revelation. Science cannot study Divine Revelation. Sure, people can comment on it but that doesn’t make it true. An ideology has crept in to make some things symbolic only. Meaning, certain things never happened. Regarding Adam, let’s look for another reference that is not in Genesis.

Romans 5:12:

New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
 
Repeated throughout Scripture and the majority of the Church’s history is the teaching that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, immediately, Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side, as adults. There are no mentions of dropping souls into people or of Adam and Eve having any parents themselves.

We believe that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit in our Blessed Mother, that he worked miracles in His life including raising the dead, and that He rose from the dead. So it should not be an exercise in pigeonholing Genesis into modern scientific accounts when it comes to figuring out who our first parents were. Scripture is clear throughout. God worked direct miracles in many cases. It should not be surprising, or hard to believe by any stretch of the imagination, that God so chose to create human beings, His greatest visible creation, directly and immediately.
 
Ayden said:
OK, so the Humani Generis is not infallible, right? I don’t have to believe it to become Catholic? (Edit: Because it’s Sacred Magisterium, but not Universal Magisterium.)
Click to expand...
One needs to give obedient consent, meaning one accepts what is taught in faith because it has come from those that were given authority by Christ to teach the Truth.

The Seat of Moses that was occupied by the Sanhedrin during Jesus time was transferred to the Apostles. Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”, and we trust He will do this.

Every person has an obligation to follow their conscience, so you must act according to the Truth that God has revealed to you.

You can also have mental reservation, where you may not be persuaded about all the doctrines of the faith, but you are willing to trust that God will reveal them to you in His time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top