Adam or Eve? Who to ultimately blame for the fall?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthew1624
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Every detail is not necessarily literal, but the event did indeed happen. We did have two first parents, and they did indeed “eat of the fruit”, whatever that may be, and we did inherit their sin. This is absolute doctrine of the Church, not a mere fantasy. The details are described in figurative words in order to lend them a wider meaning and context, but the event certainly happened, according to the teaching authority of the Church.

Well since Webster defines figurative as “expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous”, I will take the story as being an analogy describing why there is suffering in a world created by a loving God.

And since Dei Verbum states: “To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”

No one is denying there is truth in this story but discussing who sinned first is taking it to a ridiculous level (unless we are just intent on trivializing the whole thing).

Pat
 
40.png
patg:
The Church in absolutely no way requires anyone to believe or suggests there is real history in a story about talking serpents and magic trees.

Please talk about the presence of evil and rejection of God - not about whether snakes once talked to people.
Click to expand...
In Numbers, God makes Balaam hear his donkey talk. And in the New Testament, demons were driven out of swines. Is it too much to ask for to believe these stories and not whether or not Satan could take the form of a serpent/dragon and deceive our first parents?
 
40.png
patg:
Yes there is essential truth in this story and yes this is a story about rejection of God. BUT, as the catechism states, it is told in figurative language. Discussing this event as real history can’t be any more than a fun little exercise. If you take it as more than that you are totally missing the intent of the author - which was not to tell history as is indicated by the numerous literary clues he or she provides.

Please talk about the presence of evil and rejection of God - not about whether snakes once talked to people.
Click to expand...
Yes it is figurative language. But are you denying that the serpent represents the person of Satan, and that our actual first parents were not presented a choice by him. Whether it occurred as eating an apple is irrelavent.

Part of the elemental truths in the story are two actual people (our first parents), satan as the presenter of the choice, and the decision whic was original sin. The church has been very clear that Adam and eve were not representative somehow of a larger humanity, but rather were two real people presented with a real choice by another real ‘person’. That is not open to interpretation.
 
40.png
patg:
Well since Webster defines figurative as “expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous”, I will take the story as being an analogy describing why there is suffering in a world created by a loving God.
Click to expand...
True, but it can’t be anaologous for whatever we choose. This dumbed down description of ‘why there is suffering in the world’ strips it of most of it’s meaning. That’s not ALL it says.

Do you believe there were two actual people who were our first parents (put the name issue aside for now)?
40.png
patg:
No one is denying there is truth in this story but discussing who sinned first is taking it to a ridiculous level (unless we are just intent on trivializing the whole thing).
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point of the original question. If you are familiar at all with JPII’s Theology of the Body, you would understand why such a question would not be ridiculous as it speaks very deeply to the relationships between husband and wife.
 
40.png
SteveG:
True, but it can’t be anaologous for whatever we choose. This dumbed down description of ‘why there is suffering in the world’ strips it of most of it’s meaning. That’s not ALL it says.

Do you believe there were two actual people who were our first parents (put the name issue aside for now)?

I think you missed the point of the original question. If you are familiar at all with JPII’s Theology of the Body, you would understand why such a question would not be ridiculous as it speaks very deeply to the relationships between husband and wife.
Click to expand...
 
Do you believe there were two actual people who were our first parents (put the name issue aside for now)?

Well, I believe that somewere in the distant past there was probably a group of individuals who, through divine intervention, became what we call “humans”. Exactly two? I doubt it.

…I highly doubt you’d find anybody whose responded to this so far who views this as ‘just a fun little excercise’.

I have absolutely NO doubt that most everyone on THIS web site would agree with you!

…but rather were two real people presented with a real choice by another real ‘person’. That is not open to interpretation.

Apparantly my exposure to current Catholic religious education and theologians is very differenct from yours.

Pat
 
patg said:
Do you believe there were two actual people who were our first parents (put the name issue aside for now)?

Well, I believe that somewere in the distant past there was probably a group of individuals who, through divine intervention, became what we call “humans”. Exactly two? I doubt it.

Apparantly my exposure to current Catholic religious education and theologians is very differenct from yours.
Click to expand...

First, let me preface this by saying that I am not a literalist. I have no problem with the idea of guided evolution as the mode of bring life into being, nor do I think the earth is 5000 years old, etc.

That being said, the above statement is simply contradictory to church teaching. This has nothing to do with ‘exposure’ to certain schools or theologians. If you hold the above, it is simply not in accord with Church teaching. In addition, it negates the dogma on original sin, which makes baptism meaningless, and it would negate the dogma of the immaculate conceoption. This is VERY bad theology, and wherever you pick this up, I’d say they are stearing you wrong. …

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII tells Catholics, “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 parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” Furthermore, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have proclaimed the same truth. Truly, how clearly these Holy Fathers have spelled it out: we all came from Adam and Eve.

…I will pull together some documentation from JPII on this for you as well, as he has spoken very explicitely on this notion of Adam and Eve as ‘representative of a group of first parents’ and totally rejected it.
 
40.png
SteveG:
I think you missed the point of the original question. If you are familiar at all with JPII’s Theology of the Body, you would understand why such a question would not be ridiculous as it speaks very deeply to the relationships between husband and wife.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. And I would start with the Letter to Women.

jp2fan
 
40.png
Meggie:
Adam should of protected Eve from, the serpant…he did not fulfil his role as a male protector, therefore it is his fault.
Click to expand...
Only because Adam listened to his wife :rolleyes:

Seriously, both of thier faults.
 
40.png
patg:
Well, I believe that somewere in the distant past there was probably a group of individuals who, through divine intervention, became what we call “humans”. Exactly two? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
A quick follow up. Read this article from Catholic Answers which addresses the topic of discussion in some detail. The statement above is a define heresy call polygenism.

Loading…

www.catholic.com

…and this from a Q&A section of New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia…
newadvent.org/almanac/thisrock94.htm
…just search the page for polygenism.

This from JPII’s MESSAGE TO PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES regarding the theory of evolution. Note the strong ‘warning’ in point 3 before he even discusses the theory…
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html
…JPII states
Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points

…This is not open for debate for a faithful Catholic, and the above statement you made is totally at odds with Church teaching. Just thought you’d like to know.%between%
 
40.png
SteveG:
First, let me preface this by saying that I am not a literalist. I have no problem with the idea of guided evolution as the mode of bring life into being, nor do I think the earth is 5000 years old, etc.

That being said, the above statement is simply contradictory to church teaching. This has nothing to do with ‘exposure’ to certain schools or theologians. If you hold the above, it is simply not in accord with Church teaching. In addition, it negates the dogma on original sin, which makes baptism meaningless, and it would negate the dogma of the immaculate conceoption. This is VERY bad theology, and wherever you pick this up, I’d say they are stearing you wrong. …

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII tells Catholics, “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 parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” Furthermore, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have proclaimed the same truth. Truly, how clearly these Holy Fathers have spelled it out: we all came from Adam and Eve.

…I will pull together some documentation from JPII on this for you as well, as he has spoken very explicitely on this notion of Adam and Eve as ‘representative of a group of first parents’ and totally rejected it.
Click to expand...
And PiusXII’s and JPII’s scientific credentials are???

In fact the scientific evidence is that the minimum population size of humans and human ancestors in the last 6 million years is around 10,000 individuals. The evidence completely refutes the idea of a population bottleneck of two individuals. The fact is that Adam and Eve are figurative concepts in exactly the same way that a 6-day creation or a Noahnic flood is figurative. There is a lot more detail on this subject in this thread ‘Adam, Eve and Evolution’ here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6844

By sticking to this doctrine the Church is setting itself up for the same sort of embrassment that it faced over the Galileo affair that culminated in JPII’s apology in 1992.

Some people accept genetic polygeny but stick to spiritual monogeny, which is fair enough ; but Pius XII’s statement of doctrine clearly allows only genetic monogeny (‘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…’) and it is simply wrong according to the scientific evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
hecd2:
And PiusXII’s and JPII’s scientific credentials are???
Click to expand...
I’ll first refer you to the same message of the Pope which I gave below…
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html
…as a starting point.
40.png
hecd2:
In fact the scientific evidence is that the minimum population size of humans and human ancestors in the last 6 million years is around 10,000 individuals. The evidence completely refutes the idea of a population bottleneck of two individuals.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this before and I have read evidence to the contrary. Since this clearly goes way beyond the bounds of this thread, and has already been addressed in the other, I’ll simply leave your reference to that thread as a starting point and let this one get back on topic.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Adam was federally (Covenantally) responsible. While Eve was responsible for her personal sin as was Adam for his, Adam was the head of Eve and therefore the “head” of mankind. That is why it is said that mankind is fallen in Adam. Just as every man is utimately responsible for the spiritual well being of his family in a corporate sense.

We fathers should constantly remind ourselves of this. It is easy to forget in an individualistic culture. We are each personally responsible before God, but heads of households are also responsible before God for his household. Very sobering stuff for dads.

Mel
Click to expand...
And we still follow Adam’s footsteps to this day. How many families do you see in church where the father has opted not to come to Mass leaving Mom alone with the kids? How many men do you see taking part in Mass in all of the various ministries? From my experience I see more women. Men need to take charge and show some leadership by example.
 
40.png
SteveG:
I’ll first refer you to the same message of the Pope which I gave below…
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html
…as a starting point.

I’ve heard this before and I have read evidence to the contrary. Since this clearly goes way beyond the bounds of this thread, and has already been addressed in the other, I’ll simply leave your reference to that thread as a starting point and let this one get back on topic.
Click to expand...
Does this thread have bounds? It seems to me that it’s a nonsense to discuss which of Adam and Eve were more responsible for the Fall, (in terms that are exceedingly insulting to women), when Adam and Eve did not literally exist. If you think there is evidence to the contrary, let’s have it.

As for JPII’s address, it is a grand, life enhancing statement of doctrine, except for two things:
  1. the fact that it kow-tows to PiusXII’s errors with regard to genetic monogeny
  2. this statement: ‘Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man’, which bans from the opinions of Catholics a serious hypothesis of science (and one on which almost all research into cognitive science is currently based). It might not be that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter (although that is my view), but to ban Catholic’s from even considering it as a serious hypothesis is to meddle in an area where he has no knowledge or authority and where the Church has repeatedly come a cropper. I know of many Catholic scientists who are ignoring JPII’s admonition and are conducting research into the emergence of mind from brain.
The arguments for mind as an epiphenomenon of brain are extremely cogent.

My view is that all theological attempts to constrain scientific opinions are unwise, ill-advised and, sadly, are liable to lead to embarassment for the Church

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I just heard this on a tape the other day…
Adam was responsible because he let the serpent into the garden. However, do you know the reason Satan wanted to tempt Eve in the first place? Well, according to this person, Satan wanted to tempt Eve because when he was banned from Heaven he was told the “Woman” would crush his head. Satan thought Eve might be that “woman” and wanted to test her and get to her before she could hurt him. Anyway, I thought that was really intresting. If you want to know, it was Alex Jones that said that. God Bless!
 
40.png
SteveG:
This is not open for debate for a faithful Catholic, and the above statement you made is totally at odds with Church teaching. Just thought you’d like to know.
Click to expand...
This is pretty minor compared to the other areas where I’m at odds with Church teaching. As is stated in other comments, the glacier like speed at which the Church moves is understandable but regrettable - I’m sure embarrassments like Gallileo and Copernicus will continue to occur because teachings so tremendously lag knowledge.

I appreciate all the concerns about my heresies but believing that Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel, Jonah in the whale, the story of Job, etc. are history is an insult to the authors who went to a lot of trouble to teach real truths about our relationship with God.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure the people of the Paulist Press have not been excommunicated for publishing the books from which I have learned things like this. “And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” by Dr. Margaret Ralph is a really good starting point (She is also the director of adult religious education for our diocese).

Pat
 
In 1866, Cardinal Newman distilled this belief of the Fathers:

Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom was divinely committed the naming of all things, entitled her the Mother of all the living, a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity; but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again had she her own special place as regards its trial and its fall in Adam. In those primeval events, Eve had an integral share. The woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband, and he ate of it. She co-operated, not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin; she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a* sine-qua-non*, a positive, active cause of it. And she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognized as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly. In that awful transaction there were three parties concerned - the serpent, the woman and the man; and at the time of their sentence, an event was announced for the future, in which the three same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman and the man; but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam: I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to me undeniable; but at all events, (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration (John Henry Newman, in Sr. Eileen Breen, F.M.A., editor, Mary-The Second Eve, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1982, p. 2).
 
St. Irenaeus of:
In 1866, Cardinal Newman distilled this belief of the Fathers: Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate …etc.
Click to expand...
So as Mary is coremdemptrix, Eve is a cotemptress. Nice “lightbullb” moment from Cardinal Newman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top