Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[grannymh]

Looking at Adam in a logical manner,
it seems to me that one of the first questions is –Who is Adam?

Obviously, there are many, not all, Catholics who consider the figurative Adam as part of an allegory. A newspaper article reports that a prominent Catholic gave the answer that we should look in the mirror.

What do you think about this answer?
"Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”
I would sincerely appreciate comments. This is a free speech public message board.
No one will be hung from the ceiling by their toenails.

Here is the one direct response.

I would say thinking as above would allow us to believe that everyone has a time in their life when they are tempted to “eat from the tree”. All of us would be born capable.
But that then takes away the first two humans, the prototype that failed, who we all are tide in with as one body.

Two weeks after posts 65 and 67, this thread is stalled – not reaching into the depth of the question **Who is Adam? **And not reaching into the dangers in that newspaper article.

Obviously, there are many, not all, Catholics who consider Adam as a figurative part of an allegory concerning some kind of truth. In post 65 repeated above, a newspaper article reports that a prominent Catholic gave the answer that we should look in the mirror.
Mirror?

Christians who take seriously the teachings which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis should have jumped in and taken that newspaper article apart word by word – using a bit of logic here and there. There is still time and space to do this.

 

[grannymh]

Looking at Adam in a logical manner, it seems to me that one of the first questions is --**Who is Adam? **See post 196 for a response to the quote from a newspaper article.

While it is possible to consider Adam as the prototype that failed–especially considering the reality of Original Sin–it is important to have a Catholic doctrine as a base for discussion. A good basic fundamental Catholic doctrine is that Adam is a fully-complete human person whose nature is a decomposing anatomy and a rational spiritual soul. Adam cannot be both a prototype and an actual person at the same time.

 

[wmw]

Looking at Adam in a logical manner, it seems to me that one of the first questions is --**Who is Adam? **See post 196 for a response to the quote from a newspaper article.

While it is possible to consider Adam as the prototype that failed–especially considering the reality of Original Sin–it is important to have a Catholic doctrine as a base for discussion. A good basic fundamental Catholic doctrine is that Adam is a fully-complete human person whose nature is a decomposing anatomy and a rational spiritual soul. Adam cannot be both a prototype and an actual person at the same time.

I’m sorry Granny you are making very grand theological points while the rest of us seem to be bickering about the meanings we can squeeze out of this word or that, or what happened 1st or 2nd.

So, I too am going to stay wallowing in the pig’s sty and stick to my understanding of the Original Sin as a complex collection of Adam’s and Eve’s turning from God ending in the full denial of Adam biting into the forbidden fruit. Similar to the pascal mystery the full flow must end with resurrection and new life, but there are all sorts of horrific acts that must proceed it. So then, All I can think of in reply to your question is the following two paragraphs:

Maybe it’s important to think of Adam at times as the first to allow his mate to be deceived and failed to protect her from sinning. You see, Adam was there and did nothing to stop Eve from being deceived, contemplating the fruit as good, and first eating; so, was her’s really the first sin of humankind? No, I think this illustrates that they are one being; therefore, there is no he did, or she did, first or worst, except in the division and blame game of sin.

The original sin is all of this discussion with the serpent, the build up of Eve’s fooling herself and eating, and then Adam’s eating. Yes, the climax is the head of the family also eating, there is importance to that, but I would not speculate on what would have happened if it were different any more than I’d say that we would or wouldn’t be saved if Jesus had died by the beatings he took before being crucified. So, the question of who’s sin counts most or was first is really not part of the teaching that is intended to be presented, except that this sort of pointing blame is a result of sin.

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry Granny you are making very grand theological points while the rest of us seem to be bickering about the meanings we can squeeze out of this word or that, or what happened 1st or 2nd.

Finally, someone knows what I am doing!

Thank you sincerely.
:flowers:
​

 

[wmw]

Finally, someone knows what I am doing!

Thank you sincerely.
:flowers:
​

Blessed is the angel that brought the news that wasn’t believed. Maybe all our fingers should be tied as Zachariah’s tongue was until, he could say what was true, the name of “John”.

Let me be at least a bit more silent while you explain this:

Adam cannot be both a prototype and an actual person at the same time.

It seems contrary to the concept of Adam as a Real guy.

 

[grannymh]

Blessed is the angel that brought the news that wasn’t believed. Maybe all our fingers should be tied as Zachariah’s tongue was until, he could say what was true, the name of “John”.

Let me be at least a bit more silent while you explain this:

Adam cannot be both a prototype and an actual person at the same time.

It seems contrary to the concept of Adam as a Real guy.

In my geographical location, a prototype is considered a preliminary model of something, especially a machine, from which other forms are developed or copied. “The firm is testing a prototype of the weapon”. This is similar to a simple classification as an “original model.” Please note that I specified “at the same time.” Of course, you may disagree. This is a free speech public message board.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In my geographical location, a prototype is considered a preliminary model of something, especially a machine, from which other forms are developed or copied. “The firm is testing a prototype of the weapon”. This is similar to a simple classification as an “original model.” Please note that I specified “at the same time.” Of course, you may disagree. This is a free speech public message board.

I think WMV meant that the very fact Adam was a proto-type (literally the first of it’s type) indicates he was the first being to have all the characteristics of a real man. If I make a prototype of an airplane, the thing might be defective – but it will have all the characteristics of a “real” plane. Just so,a prototype man would normally be expected to have all the characteristics of a man; even if God later decided to make a “woman” as a new and “improved” type of man. And later send his son as the perfect type of man, but who for some strange reason refuses to marry any woman sexually.

Blessings.

 

[grannymh]

I think WMV meant that the very fact Adam was a proto-type (literally the first of it’s type) indicates he was the first being to have all the characteristics of a real man. If I make a prototype of an airplane, the thing might be defective – but it will have all the characteristics of a “real” plane. Just so,a prototype man would normally be expected to have all the characteristics of a man; even if God later decided to make a “woman” as a new and “improved” type of man. And later send his son as the perfect type of man, but who for some strange reason refuses to marry any woman sexually.

Blessings.

My apology for being stubborn about the creative power of God as expressed in Catholic teachings.

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings from the opening post.

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

On the other hand, I do recognize the additional definitions of proto-type (literally the first of it’s type) which according to post 202 indicates that Adam was the first being to have all the characteristics of a real man.

Simple questions.

Does a “real man” mean that the whole human race is in every real man as one body of one man? According to the additional definition of prototype characteristics that is described as “all” in post 202? That is a trick question which is totally unnecessary when one accepts the reality of the individual first man as he was created by God.

When there is a first type person who commits the Original Sin, does the second “same type” person commit the Original Sin? That is a serious question.

I do not need any answers to these questions. I find Catholic doctrines easier to understand.

Blessings,
granny

The real human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I find Catholic doctrines easier to understand.

One way of getting a grasp on Catholic doctrines is the observation that they work together as a beautiful unity, the goal of which is to bring humankind to their inherent goal of living in joy eternal following bodily death.

Many Christians view John 3: 16 as the summation of the New Testament. This verse is the ultimate story of God’s love for us. Because Jesus promised that His Church would have the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 14, Gospel of John), the Catholic Church has gradually grasped the full significance of Divine Revelation contained in John 3: 16-17, especially that which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis. Those three chapters contain the basic reasoning for John 3: 16. Even though Revelation is completed in Jesus Christ, it has not been stated immediately and completely explicit. (CCC 66) There is a protocol which the Catholic Church follows when there is a debate about a particular point. One of the earliest and strongest debates was the Arian Heresy. This “debate/discussion” is still seen in modern times.

Because the Catholic Church is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can learn the truths which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. This is why CCC teachings is in this thread’s title.

Once the above is understood, we can start with the origin and nature of Adam so that we can understand the connection to Jesus Christ. Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; and CCC 389, last sentence: “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[wmw]

Adam cannot be both a prototype and an actual person at the same time.

The definitions of these were not any help for we have no differences in their understandings that I see.

I’m thinking that Adam’s both a prototype of Christ and an actual person and this is in direct conflict with your above statement.

Trying to say Adam is a prototype of all people is also sort of saying he’s not a fully formed “actual person” and this is in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

I don’t get where you are going with John 3:16 except that Adam is a prototype of Christ. So, now we’ve gone about in a circle and back to just dismissing this statement as a misstatement. Or do you want to have a go at it again?

Why can’t he be an “actual person” and/or a “prototype” at the same time?

 

[wmw]

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
Very interesting!!!

CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Adam and Eve are one flesh; there is no other way that Eve is within Adam when he ate and committed Original Sin. It is true only his act is the cause of Original Sin, but both in a marital bond of human unity and in a cooperative way she also did contract, but not commit Original Sin in the act of his eating. It appears by the description of her punishment that her personal sin was not mortal, requiring separation from God as Adam’s was, Yet, She is also cast out of Eden as we all are by the contraction of Original Sin.

 

[Hunho]

The definitions of these were not any help for we have no differences in their understandings that I see.

I’m thinking that Adam’s both a prototype of Christ and an actual person and this is in direct conflict with your above statement.

Trying to say Adam is a prototype of all people is also sort of saying he’s not a fully formed “actual person” and this is in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

I don’t get where you are going with John 3:16 except that Adam is a prototype of Christ. So, now we’ve gone about in a circle and back to just dismissing this statement as a misstatement. Or do you want to have a go at it again?

Why can’t he be an “actual person” and/or a “prototype” at the same time?

What is the difference between prototype (your word) and type (the Church’s word)? Unless there is a really significant difference, why use “prototype” at all?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My apology for being stubborn about the creative power of God as expressed in Catholic teachings.

This is the apologetic section of the forums…

Simple questions.

Does a “real man” mean that the whole human race is in every real man as one body of one man? According to the additional definition of prototype characteristics that is described as “all” in post 202? That is a trick question which is totally unnecessary when one accepts the reality of the individual first man as he was created by God.

This question is extremely difficult for a number of reasons…
“All” as I used it in 202, means everything characteristic of created “man”; eg: created (not fallen) human nature.

I’m not actually going to answer your question, right now; rather I’m going to list out the relevant pieces of information/evidence/and teaching that is available on the subject.
Some meditiation will be required before I can make the ideas I present here as a collage, into a coherent whole.

The idea of many people being “in one man” comes from St. Paul /and the author of Hebrews… The idea shows up in Romans 5:12, Ephesians 2:15, and Hebrews 7:9 (See Hebrews 7:4-9 for context). And probably in lesser ways in other passages.

The particular way the church uses it in CCC 359, is especially curious and ambiguous:

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

In the genealogy of man, in Luke, Adam is not the first person in the list. God is; “Son of Adam, Son of God”; When the biblical author wrote “I am the first and last”, that refers to the fact that lists were numbered by the use of letters. So were chapters of books. So, a book’s first chapter was called “a”, the second was “b”, and so forth. Modern numbering systems came after the time of Christ. This difference is esepcially true in Hebrew writing. Each letter of the aleph-bet, is also considered a number. When Hebrew was translated into Greek, some Hebrew idioms became very famous Greek phrases; The first “aleph” and the last “tav”; was translated “alpha” and “omega”. I am the alpha and omega, I am the first and the last.

So, Strictly speaking, Jesus is not Adam and Jesus never said he was.

Jesus is, however, claiming to be God according to the genealogy of Luke.

But – St. Peter, Chrysologus, (mr. Golden argument.) sort of bends the argument to a restricted list of human beings. If his statement is taken too literally, it would be heresy; but I think what Chrysologous is trying to suggest is that Jesus was the one directly responsible for creating the image of Adam. eg: the flesh of Adam and not just his soul, was created immediately by God without sin; I think that’s what Chrysologus is arguing. But, to be honest, I’m bothered by his statement.

There is no way for Christ to save us through his flesh, unless taking man’s flesh upon himself (incarnation); that flesh has access to all men.

Therefore: One does not need to be the chronological “father” in order to give something to the whole human race. This is a mystery.

When there is a first type person who commits the Original Sin, does the second “same type” person commit the Original Sin? That is a serious question.

I do not need any answers to these questions. I find Catholic doctrines easier to understand.

No, they do not “commit” original sin. They inherit it by propagaion, and therefore – through the body.

I find the infallible dogmatic statements of the church easier to understand; but not always the expression of doctrines as found in the CCC. I sometimes wonder if it is a translation issue, or the fact that some bishops have agendas… sigh.

I’m not sure what to think. Adam and Jesus, potentially, have flesh that is different than other men. Direct intervention from God was likely involved in Adam’s flesh/formation in a way that is not true of anyone else except Eve and Mary. eg: The Dogma of the immaculate conception essentially proves that Mary’s source of flesh had to purified from original sin at the very moment her soul was infused into and began forming that body. (The body had to exist, perhaps unformed, prior to the soul’s infusion. Mary’s flesh could be saved/salvaged before infusion of her soul – but Jesus’s could not – for scripture to be properly fulfilled.)

There are three words involved in this discussion of particular importance: spirit, soul, and body.

I have always understood soul to be synonymous with human spirit; eg: man has a spiritual soul. However, looking at the CCC – the church appears to be hinting at a distinction; The spirit is supernatural, whereas the soul is natural. Hence, Adam was given a soul, but Jesus is made a life giving spirit.

That’s a way I’ve never really read passages like 1Corinthians 15:45 before… hmmm…
I always used to think those were poetic lines without real distinctions…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Adam and Eve are one flesh; there is no other way that Eve is within Adam when he ate and committed Original Sin. It is true only his act is the cause of Original Sin, but both in a marital bond of human unity and in a cooperative way she also did contract, but not commit Original Sin in the act of his eating. It appears by the description of her punishment that her personal sin was not mortal, requiring separation from God as Adam’s was, Yet, She is also cast out of Eden as we all are by the contraction of Original Sin.

WMW; I am unsure if Eve’s sin was mortal or not, but I do not see any definite logical flaw in the argument you present here. But: If Eve contracted original sin, she would – however – contract something EQUIVALENT to a mortal sin. Even that would automatically separate her from God.

A person who manages, hypothetically, to die in original sin alone; still goes to hell.
And let me be very clear, that would be true even if they never committed a venial sin.

I am saying this because it’s church Dogma which I have studied wanting to find any way around it… but that’s the fallen nature that Original sin gives to a person.
There is hope that God will save such a person, as we are allowed to hope for unbaptized infants who are stillborn; but there is no revelation that God definitely will save any stillborn child, or any child that a parent neglects to baptize and who dies.

 

[grannymh]

The definitions of these were not any help for we have no differences in their understandings that I see.

I’m thinking that Adam’s both a prototype of Christ and an actual person and this is in direct conflict with your above statement.

Trying to say Adam is a prototype of all people is also sort of saying he’s not a fully formed “actual person” and this is in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

I don’t get where you are going with John 3:16 except that Adam is a prototype of Christ. So, now we’ve gone about in a circle and back to just dismissing this statement as a misstatement. Or do you want to have a go at it again?

Why can’t he be an “actual person” and/or a “prototype” at the same time?

In reply to question – Why can’t he be an “actual person” and/or a “prototype” at the same time?

It all depends on how the “figurative” speech is used and whom it refers to. Personally, I do not recommend using prototype because it will only confuse those Christians who have no clue what Original Sin is.

John 3:16 is the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. As a journalist before Google, I need to [hands on]search out the Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? of the breaking news in John 3:16.

As apparent, this thread includes lots of interesting discussions about Adam and Eve. It is also apparent that the guests often outnumber the members currently using this Forum. Therefore, someone has to present actual Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis so that all readers can learn about Catholicism. Notice thread title.

 

[grannymh]

WMW; I am unsure if Eve’s sin was mortal or not, but I do not see any definite logical flaw in the argument you present here. But: If Eve contracted original sin, she would – however – contract something EQUIVALENT to a mortal sin. Even that would automatically separate her from God.

Genesis 2: 15-17 describes a grave mortal sin against God’s direct commandment which states the result of disobedience.
Genesis 2: 15-17
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16.
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

Eve was also subject to the same commandment. She committed a personal mortal sin. CCC 404
Genesis 3: 1-3
1
Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”
2
The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3a
it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”

A person who manages, hypothetically, to die in original sin alone; still goes to hell.
And let me be very clear, that would be true even if they never committed a venial sin.

I am saying this because it’s church Dogma which I have studied wanting to find any way around it… but that’s the fallen nature that Original sin gives to a person.
There is hope that God will save such a person, as we are allowed to hope for unbaptized infants who are stillborn; but there is no revelation that God definitely will save any stillborn child, or any child that a parent neglects to baptize and who dies.

In CCC 1260, there is this important clarification.
**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

An affirmation of this clarification is found in *CCC *1257, last line.
**1257 **God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Genesis 2: 15-17 describes a grave mortal sin against God’s direct commandment which states the result of disobedience.Genesis 2: 15-17
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16.
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

And, very clearly, the woman was not created when the command was given. It was given directly to the man. God had not even revealed to Adam that he was going to create a woman at the point you are quoting from scripture.

I can agree, wholeheartedly, that what God is describing to Adam is mortal sin. The reason is simple, “mortal” means death. The very last verse says,“when you eat from it you shall die.”

So, when I say I am uncertain that Eve committed a mortal sin – there is a subtlety involved that you’re still overlooking.

Eve was also subject to the same commandment. She committed a personal mortal sin. CCC 404Genesis 3: 1-3
He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

Where do you get the part that she was definitely subject to the exact same statute/commandment?

I am sure you are inferring something that the text itself does not say, and the CCC avoids explicitly mentioning because there’s no proof. The devil is quite subtle; we ought to tread carefully… what you are saying is a reasonable inference, but it can easily be wrong for a few reasons:

I see the serpent asking the woman what God said. I see the woman interpreting the law to include herself. But I don’t see a scripture verse spoken by God almighty, as opposed to god’s voice via an angel, or Adam son of God – which corroborates what the woman claims. Her own testimony is invalid when determining if her act was actually “grave”. I will admit her testimony shows SHE thought that grave matter was involved – but there’s no “smoking gun” so to speak. Where’s the direct evidence that the law applied to the woman per se ?

I’m going to point out again, St. Paul affirms that the woman was created second; that the woman was “deceived”, and the man was not. Therefore, the woman heard the message of God through a messenger – either Adam, or an Angelic being. For if it were otherwise, the woman is already a liar the moment she misquotes the law. Therefore, she doesn’t understand the law – because, according to Catholic teaching she was not yet a liar.

Consider carefully:
There were only males around when God said the double death will be dealt the moment you all [males] eat of the fruit. And, Adam is claimed as a saint – and at least one man, Jesus, never ate in a forbidden way. So, in one sense – the command was never entirely broken. As the CCC indicates, the fruit represents (using mystical language) the bounds which man, as a creature, ought never cross. But – the law itself is mystical language.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When I read the law, I am unclear as to exactly who the “you” is that YHWH meant, if not Adam and Jesus (whom is not yet formed, but who’s Spirit is present at the time of Adam.) The woman did not exist when the Law was given (and she was deceived).
Watch:

it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”

The law was given by the Lord God, YHWH, and IT did not have the part about “you shall not even touch it.” YHWH explicitly told, Adam, a slightly different law.
But notice, the serpent does not ask the woman, “Did YHWH really say…”
Rather the devil asks, Did Elohym really say,…"

Right there, the devil is insinuating that the woman did not speak to YHWH directly, but rather to “gods” – even Adam and angels are considered “gods” as they are sons of God. See the footnote to CCC 332.

Check the Hebrew yourself: biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-1.htm (and verse 3).

The woman clearly admits what the devil insinuates, for she actually says she heard the law from from Elohym and not YHWH in verse 3-3. eg: The woman does not recognize YHWH personally as a source of the law. The same is found in the Greek.

The latin Vulgate partially preserves the ambiguity: – Deus – “mere god”, not “Dominus Deus” eg: Lord God.
3 de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus et ne tangeremus illud ne forte moriamur

But the name LORD GOD (YHWH) was explicitly used when the author of Genesis told us WHO gave the law to Adam. See Genesis 2:16 (in Hebrew) and the word YHWH over-rides gods/angels. Even in the Latin Vulgate (Genesis 2:15) the same distinction is preserved: “Tulit ergo Dominus Deus hominem, et posuit eum in paradiso voluptatis, ut operaretur, et custodiret illum”

Neither a lesser god nor a mere angel is the authority behind the version of the law given to Adam; it is YHWH himself. But the woman doesn’t demonstrate knowing the full authority of the law.

The second point, is that mortal sin requires three conditions to exist; and those conditions are grave matter (for the person committing the sin), full knowledge, and full consent.

The last two conditions are questionable. Not only is The devil is among the “gods”, that is – he is a seraph serpent with wings, eg: a seraphim, and his being “elohym” allows him to fool the woman into thinking he has the authority as a “god” to give her permission to eat; but also the devil states the temptation consistent with a backhanded threat, “you will not die IF you all eat the fruit.” (Implying the devil will kill you if you don’t eat.)

Some of the early church fathers have commented on this issue, and even Jesus says ambiguously,“The devil is a murderer from the beginning.” Not just a tempter.

Some of the posters in this thread have referenced an idea presented by Scott Hahn on the same issue; so understand, this is a well respected position within the Catholic church by scholars who are well within the church’s good graces. The devil may well have been putting Adam or the woman in a position of duress.

So, I’ll say it again: I’m not sure that the woman committed a mortal sin.

There are good arguments for and against the woman having met all three conditions.
Someone might have a trump argument, but I definitely have not seen it yet.

 

[grannymh]

Where do you get the part that she was definitely subject to the exact same statute/commandment?

Eve is a human creature.

Adam and Eve were constituted in an original “State of Holiness and Justice.” This grace of Original Holiness was “to share in … divine life.” Genesis 1: 27; CCC 375. In other words, both Adam and Eve were established in a friendship relationship with their Creator. As human creatures, both could live in God’s friendship (sharing in God’s divine life) only in free submission (obedience to God). Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC 396 & CCC 1730.

By yielding to the tempter, both Adam and Eve committed a serious personal mortal sin. Adam’s personal sin is also known as the Original Sin because he is the original human. As the original human, the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” CCC 404. Because of this “unity of the human race” all human nature would have received Original Holiness and Justice. CCC 404. Unfortunately, Adam abused his freedom and disobeyed God’s command. Genesis chapter 3; CCC 397-399.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Eve is a human creature.

Adam and Eve were constituted in an original “State of Holiness and Justice.”

Holiness is a kind of purity, and justice means a “right” relationship. OK. I can easily see that as being in “friendship” with God and sinless.

However, all I see from those two words is that they were prepared so that divine life/Spirit could enter in, but they were still empty temples/tabernacles – so to speak.
There is no sign of divine life making it’s abode inside them, yet. Just the potential for it.

This grace of Original Holiness was “to share in … divine life.” Genesis 1: 27; CCC 375. In other words, both Adam and Eve were established in a friendship relationship with their Creator. As human creatures, both could live in God’s friendship (sharing in God’s divine life) only in free submission (obedience to God). Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC 396 & CCC 1730.

Um. I don’t quite understand.
Holiness means set aside, or prepared; but it doesn’t automatically imply divine life was inside them, or shared with them yet.

I would assume they were destined in the future to share in divine life, but they did not have it. I tend to think Divine life is automatically supernatural. Given that the early church fathers emphasized that Adam had the breath of life, which made him a living soul; but Jesus was made a vivifying Spirit (different). The vivifying spirit implies supernatural, divine, grace. But – a mere “living soul” is not automatically divine.

See: CCC 367. My point is that Jesus supposedly gives us something greater than what Adam and Eve ever had, therefore they could not have what we have now. Divine life.
Many typical suppositions about Adam and Eve lead to … conundrums…

Let me check something you’re quoting:
The passage cited by CCC375 is lumen Gentium 2; So that’s Vatican II.
When I go there,
I read this:

His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life.

Lumen Gentium doesn’t say that Adam and Eve already shared in divine life. Nor when God planned to give them that life except that it’s future oriented; eg: “to do” not “already done”. Not to mention that the word “share” is nowhere to be found in the Vatican’s official English translation; instead we have a synonym with slightly different connotations: “participate”.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html


Odd that the official translation from the Vatican would be different from the one in the CCC.

By yielding to the tempter, both Adam and Eve committed a serious personal mortal sin.

The CCC doesn’t say that… the adjectives you’ve added are very noticably missing in CCC 404

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

The words “serious” and “mortal” aren’t there, even if somehow implied… Also, the CCC is written in a way compatible with arguing that they committed only a single personal sin together; eg: The woman gave Adam the fruit he was not to eat. So, there is nothing in the CCC which says two people committed two individual sins that were both of the same gravity.

For example, it’s proper to say that the Nazi’s comitted atrocities; eg: the Group Nazi’s did – but that doesn’t automatically prove that every single person drafted into the Nazi army did exactly the same crimes. Some of them obviously did not.

Just so: When the CCC speaks of Adam and Eve as a couple – there is no justification by using that alone to claim that they each must have committed individual sins with exactly the same gravity and mortality. eg: I’m still not sure.

Adam’s personal sin is also known as the Original Sin because he is the original human. As the original human, the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” CCC 404.

Yes. No complaint. We all have made contact with the Body Adam left for us.

Because of this “unity of the human race” all human nature would have received Original Holiness and Justice. CCC 404. Unfortunately, Adam abused his freedom and disobeyed God’s command. Genesis chapter 3; CCC 397-399.

That’s all fine, but none of it says the specific statute given to Adam was the exact same one given to the woman. There’s nothing that proves beyond a doubt that the woman was to obey the law in exactly the same way Adam was. There is evidence, since her eyes were “not opened” when she herself ate, and Adam did not – that the sin as committed by Eve alone, was not as serious as when committed by Adam right after her.

Again, the LORD God, said to Adam – you shall not eat; but apparently only a mouthpiece for God said to the woman, “don’t even touch it!”