I am not sure about translations of Vatican II documents. However, I have The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In general, this book provides the context for a CCC footnote.
If you read the compendium, it still proves the same basic point as the English translation on the Vatican website; even the compendium does not come right out and say they had divine life; but merely says “… raise up men
to share in divine life.” Man’s purpose, destiny, or ultimate goal was to share in divine life, but there is nothing even in the compendium which explicitly says they already had it and that divine life is not a planned future “destiny”.
This is such an important point for distinguishing between whether Adam and Eve were granted supernatural graces, vs. preternatural, vs. only natural; that I am quite surprised that I can find no clarification for it in the CCC. It’s as if they don’t want us to know…
The CCC 374 does say that the original state would be: “surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.” by which, I again infer, that the graces given to us through Jesus differ in some fundamental way from those given to Adam and the first Woman.
CCC 54, again says “he invited them to intimate communion” but does not say they actually achieved that communion. Ugh! Any number of erroneous opinions could be formed as to the relative nature of the graces which Adam and Eve had, vs. us now.
Tentatively, I
want to say they had supernatural graces, but I can’t prove it from the CCC. And yet, I have to hold – as a matter of teaching – that whatever graces Jesus brings must supersede and surpass those of our first parents.
The vagueness of the teaching we have in the CCC is very confusing and frustrating to me.
In post 214, I tried to anticipate diverse explanations for parts of the first three chapters of Genesis. In other words, in my humble opinion, post 214 contains the Catholic teachings for many of the points in post 215. I did not repeat earlier comments that Genesis 2: 15-17 refers to God’s serious command and the result of disobedience.
Sigh.
You appear not to understand the reason for my question, or the point I’ve been repeatedly making:
Genesis 2:15-17 was given to Adam, alone, not to the woman, and not to Eve; That law was explicitly given by the Lord God to Adam. Does this make sense?
eg: Eve quite clearly did not directly receive that law you mention as stated in Genesis 2:15-17 for she was 1) created later 2) quotes it differently and 3) does not attribute it to the Lord God, but merely to a being who is in the place of God. 4) The CCC does not explicitly say that Eve received the law from the Lord God, himself; but only vaguely indicates she got it somehow “with” (through?) Adam.
So, much of what you are putting in post 214 – is speculation.
We don’t have definitive church teaching on these subtle points, and logic is insufficient to determine the answers from the CCC’s text because of ambiguities in how the CCC’s written as well.
God can communicate with man – but does always do it directly, or sometimes though angels?
Please note: Many places in scripture where “God” is written – other scriptures will show us that an angel was acting as an intermediary and spoke in the person of God.
For example, the burning bush is really an angel acting the part of God.
Exodus 3:2 & 4
2 And here the LORD revealed himself through a flame that rose up from the midst of a bush. 3. … said Moses I must go up and see more of it, a bush that does not waste by burning. 4. But now when he saw him coming up to look closer, God called to him from the midst of the bush, Moses Moses."
So, The Lord God [YHWH] saw Moses – but the Lord God is not said to explicitly speak, himself, from the bush; rather merely God speaks. In Hebrew, the second word is “Elohym” So; In this case, we know that an angel (messenger) was the one who made the vocal sounds on behalf of the eternal God. Eg: God’s words were spoken by an angel.
How can I show this more certainly? The distinction is reasonably regular. Whenever “Elohym” (plural gods) is said and not “YHWH” or “YHWH Elohym” (eg: Lord God) the lack of the word Lord, means we don’t know for certain that God himself is speaking, but may be using an angel to carry his words, much like a telephone.
St. Luke and St. Paul regularly interpret old testament scripture that way, and understood angels to be involved more often than not:
Acts 7:30-35 (Ronald Knox Catholic Bible)
Forty years later a vision came to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai; a bush had caught fire; and an angel was standing among the flames. Moses saw it, and was astonished at the sight.
The author of Hebrews also tells us that angels were the mediators who spoke to Man and gave them the law thorough-out the old testament (which includes Genesis by the way
)
Hebrews 2:2-3 (Ronald knox translation).
The old law, which had only angels for its spokesmen, was none the less valid; every transgression of it, every refusal to listen to it, incurred just retribution. and what excuse shall we have, if we pay no heed to such a message of salvation as has been given to us? One which was delivered in the first instance by the Lord [eg: Jesus] himself, and has been guaranteed to us by those who heard it from his own lips?"
So, again, I’m trying to point out – angels can very much be understood to have affected the message that the woman received. We are only told the “LORD” gave the law to the man; but all bets are off with the woman who was deceived.
If you still don’t understand the point I’m trying to make, we probably should just let it go.
Perhaps it’s too subtle.
Blessings to you.
Your brother in Christ, Jesus; Andrew.
There are days like this…
