F
fhansen
Guest
Or maybe the opposite. With nothing to fear in Eden A&E had it too easy-and a little fear-of disobeying God, was in order.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
But ultimately there can and must be such a relationship. Our job here-the part we play- from Adam down to us now, is to learn of the importance of that relationship-and then embracing it. And this happens as we come to know, be reconciled with, and to love Him, which is the whole purpose of the Atonement. Its a process ùof perfecting-and, yes, sanctifying grace, alone, does not guarantee that we’ll remain in Christ. The Beatific Vision, however, acheived after testing/refining/purifying/sanctfying, does guarantee it, where the relationship is fully consummated.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please read post 53 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12421793&postcount=53
G
grannymh
Guest
I would offer that Professor Adam immediately knew and understood the importance of his State of Sanctifying Grace from the “lips” of God. (Information source. Genesis 1: 26-27; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3:10; CCC 355-357; *CCC *1730-1734)
F
fhansen
Guest
But, then, he disobeyed anyway, not yet willing to obey for one reason or another. With the BV, the will is entirely sold out, the heart capitivated, satisfied; there’s no desire to ever turn away again. Presumably, if Adam had loved God the way he was loved in Eden, he’d never have committed his sin of disobedience.
G
grannymh
Guest
Unfortunately, a few popular priest authors are currently promoting misinformation about the people and the events at the dawn of human history. Today, I googled an author priest who recently came to my attention. Now, some of the confusion on CAF is sadly understandable.
We need to pray for these priests and for the people who follow them.
Links to correct Catholic teachings
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
We need to pray for these priests and for the people who follow them.
Links to correct Catholic teachings
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
F
fhansen
Guest
It’d probably b more beneficial if you were more specific on this. We Catholics can be quite uninformed about our faith.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding misinformation about Original Sin and the Original Adam.
In my humble opinion, it would be more beneficial if readers looked for key words such as a symbolic rendering of such and such a principle/concept or representative of ourselves. Anytime there is an implication that Adam did not exist as a first individual human person, a red flag should appear. Often downplaying Original Sin is accompanied by an appeal to be modern.
Just now, I googled “Original Sin symbol” Here is a rather interesting link.
scientificdreaminterpretation.com/blog/?p=940
Here we find – “The forbidden apple represents wisdom.” I do not know which author first stated that speculation. However, CCC 396 presents the Catholic interpretation
We also find – “Adam and Eve represent the masculine and the feminine attitude before all life challenges.” Represent an attitude? That is a prominent clue for anti-Catholic teaching.
From the link.
“Human beings should obey God’s directions, which are given to them through dream messages and religious teachings. However, they believe they can easily attain wisdom and decide alone what is good or bad for them.”
Because human beings, starting with Adam, are free to decide what is good or bad for them – does that mean that both “through dream messages and religious teachings” are accurate Catholicism? A Catholic would define religious teachings as being based on Divine Revelation duly declared in Catholic doctrines and not from “dream messages”.
CAF members do a great job when it comes to discussions about the first three chapters of Genesis – which do invite confusing questions.
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok, but then a question logically follows. If “Professor Adam immediately knew and understood the importance of his State of Sanctifying Grace from the “lips” of God”, why, then, didn’t Adam* believe* those words that came from the lips of God.
G
grannymh
Guest
Can it be assumed that Adam did not believe those words?
That is a trick question based on the skill of analytical thinking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_skill
palgrave.com/studentstudyskills/page/critical-and-analytical-thinking-skills/
F
fhansen
Guest
A problem is that, if we say Adam believed every word God told him, then we must believe that Adam wanted to suffer the fate that resulted from eating of the fruit. Adam wanted to lose sanctifying grace, Adam wanted to die, Adam wanted the consequences that resulted, knowing as well as God just how bad they would be for him. But that isn’t the case. Adam believed that he would only gain by his act of disobedience, that he would have more, that he would be like God. And that didn’t happen, of course.
Yes, somewhere inside Adam knew better, but he preferred to believe what he came to believe; he ‘let trust his die in his heart’ as the Catechism puts it, exchanging the truth for a lie as those did in Rom 1:25. He was tempted, enticed, then overcome by his desire. And the truth was simply an obstacle to attaining that desire. This was the first act, for humanity, of ignoring, of turning away from, Truth, of becoming accomplices with the father of lies, of becoming comfortable with half-truths, of living with a compromised innocence. And this condition would continue to permeate human affairs to this day.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please hold on to those comments.
Back in post 69, you asked a logical question.
If “Professor Adam immediately knew and understood the importance of his State of Sanctifying Grace from the “lips” of God”, why, then, didn’t Adam* believe* those words that came from the lips of God.
In order to answer that question properly, we need to do some analytical thinking. See links in post 70. Therefore, I began with a valid question.
Can it be assumed that Adam did not believe those words?
In post 71, there is a reverse of that assumption.
A problem is that, if we say Adam believed every word God told him, then we must believe that Adam wanted to suffer the fate that resulted from eating of the fruit.
We need to first validate at least one of the assumptions that Adam either believed God’s words or he did not believe those words. You certainly can propose another way to validate these assumptions.
It is my opinion, that the evidence for Adam believing God’s words is Genesis 3: 8-10.
Additional evidence would be Adam’s real human nature which includes intellectual freedom to choose either good or evil. (Information source. CCC 1731-1732 which does include a reference to your comments about the Beatific Vision in post 65)
If we come to a conclusion that Adam did believe God’s words, then it is time to sort out this problem from post 71.
A problem is that, if we say Adam believed every word God told him, then we must believe that Adam wanted to suffer the fate that resulted from eating of the fruit. Adam wanted to lose sanctifying grace, Adam wanted to die, Adam wanted the consequences that resulted, knowing as well as God just how bad they would be for him. But that isn’t the case. Adam believed that he would only gain by his act of disobedience, that he would have more, that he would be like God. And that didn’t happen, of course.
My question asks what is the reasoning for saying “then we must believe that Adam wanted to suffer the fate that resulted from eating the fruit.” While the above follows well, I still wonder if there is a possible implication that Adam’s belief was an
either-or situation. Is there some missing information or missing circumstances?
G
grannymh
Guest
Looking at this situation from another angle.
Starting from the observation that Adam was overcome by his desire. Someone could point out that Adam was free from the triple concupiscence which means that he had mastery of self. (Information source: CCC 377) Still, this mastery of self would not remove the truth that Adam was a creature in God’s world. Perhaps the missing information is that Adam had to freely recognize his own status as a creature whose nature was an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.
Perhaps the missing information is in plain sight in *CCC *1730. This paragraph has these interesting words.
“God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator …”
In my humble opinion, this strongly indicates that Adam needed to understand his own person. “Professor Adam” would add that the human combination of spiritual and material worlds was explained in Genesis 1: 26-27 and a second time in Genesis 2: 7. At this time, we need to pay attention to the “warning” in CCC 365. Spirit and matter (immortal soul and decomposing anatomy) “are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”
Reading Genesis 2: 15-17, we can understand that God’s commandment required that Adam recognize and accept his status as a created creature.
Fhasen’s post 71 points to the conflict in Adam.
Yes, somewhere inside Adam knew better, but he preferred to believe what he came to believe; he ‘let trust his die in his heart’ as the Catechism puts it, exchanging the truth for a lie as those did in Rom 1:25.
This sentence from post 71 says volumes.
And the truth was simply an obstacle to attaining that desire.
Adam did believe every word that God said to him. His freely committed Original Sin does not necessarily mean that Adam wanted to suffer the fate that resulted from eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam did not necessarily want to lose Sanctifying Grace. What possibly happened is that Adam simply downgraded the “sin” to an obstacle. Do I really need to mention that downgrading mortal sins is prevalent in this century?
As post 71 clearly says. Adam preferred to believe what he came to believe. He could do this because he had intellectual freedom. Thank you fhansen for Romans 1: 25. The mentioned creature can easily refer to Adam. Adam knew the results of sin. He did not want to lose Sanctifying Grace. Why would Adam lose Sanctifying Grace which is God’s life in us as God’s creatures? Losing God’s life was an obstacle which could be overcome because Adam would freely accept Satan’s invitation to be like a god having God’s life with all God’s knowledge which would be absolute power. Therefore, Adam would no longer be a needy creature having to obey the requirements of his creaturely status. (Information source. CCC 397-398)
F
fhansen
Guest
Some rambling thoughts.
I like your use of Gen 3:8-10. It highlights the fact that the truth still resided in Adam. And this gives insight into this paragraph:
**1707 “Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.” He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:
Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.**
So Adam is conflicted/divided. All other creation, except men and angels, comply perfectly with God’s law: rocks, plants, insects, and animals- all true to their natures, aligned with God’s will. Man is torn between the truth of who he is and who he wants to be-or thinks he wants to be. Rom 7 also addresses this situation from the perspective of concupiscence, man torn between desires because he’s already torn within, between himself as god, or God as God.
It seems that God made Adam perfect in every way except to make his will perfectly or necessarily formed/aligned with truth, aligned with His will IOW. To put it another way, God made man’s will free. So why did Adam, with intellect, reason, self-mastery, and full knowledge, sin against his Creator? Why would he abuse his free will? It seems to me that the very limitations that are inherent in a creature, limitations that demand recognition of and obedience to his Creator are, almost ironically, the very limitations (i.e. imperfection) that allow for the possibility of sin. IOW Adam lacks the perfection of God, and therefore can lack the perfect wisdom of God? And it seems to me that the paragraphs you mentioned earlier then apply to Adam as well as his descendants:
**1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.**
Perfecting is a process in God’s plan for His universe.
Did Adam believe God? If a man, standing on a precipice, is known by observers to have a sound mind, knowing full-well that he would die if he were to jump, what should their conclusion be if, indeed, he jumped? Either he wanted to die, or, somehow, he decided-he believed- (he decided to believe?) that he wouldn’t die after all, in spite of the knowledge that should’ve been innate, the knowledge he should’ve believed and acted upon. It seems to me that Adam’s act of disobedience was simultaneously the first act of disbelief, the loss, by rejection, of faith in God-the faith, BTW, which Jesus came to restore. Adam had to learn that what he’d been told, was, in fact, the truth. Adam had to learn what we all need to learn: of the infinite superiority, goodness, and trustworthiness of God and of our absolute need for Him.
"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope." Pope Benedict, Spe Salvi.
S
simpleas
Guest
When we die and (hopefully) our soul is united and in the presence of the BV that will be the true perfect relationship, while in human form we are inbetween even in our thoughts, our freewill allows us to do that.
Isn’t that why we say that no one can say they are not a sinner?
F
fhansen
Guest
I’d guess so-although sinlessness/justification is still a promise of the New Covenant-and scripture tells us no sinners enter heaven. Perhaps we don’t want to enter-and aren’t yet capable of “seeing” God anyway- to the extent that we’re still drawn to and attracted by lesser, created, things above Him first over all else. Thank God for Purgatory. I don’t know. The BV locks us into a willing love for God-and yet it seems that we’re asked to grow in that love, and grow in our desire for Him, to desire His will be done first of all, even before we achieve that secure position. It’s always a matter of the will it appears to me, God seeking to draw it nearer and nearer into perfection.
S
simpleas
Guest
Adam wanted to lose sanctifying grace, Adam wanted to die, Adam wanted the consequences that resulted, knowing as well as God just how bad they would be for him.
I don’t think we could say this, because Adam being a human was not on Gods level, so his knowledge would have been limited. But then it just sounds like a parent telling a child not to do something because it will be bad for them, the child has limited knowledge, but by experience, the child learns just why its bad for them. So with Adam and his experience, God wanted to protect his children so he warned them with limited knowledge, but also knew they would have to learn by themselves. Being only a human creature with a soul, which can choose Good over evil with some self control, once that is experienced/learnt then he can journey towards God.
There isn’t a person alive or passed (except) Christ that has ever been able to never make the wrong choice.
It is within the human nature from Adam to us.
G
grannymh
Guest
Reply to last line in post 77. “There isn’t a person alive or passed (except) Christ that has ever been able to never make the wrong choice.
It is within the human nature from Adam to us.”
Mary, Mother of Jesus, was conceived without sin. She never made a wrong choice.
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
It is within the human nature from Adam to us.”
Mary, Mother of Jesus, was conceived without sin. She never made a wrong choice.
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
S
simpleas
Guest
And Mary in the supernatural sense. Being full of Grace and saying yes to God. But I would say as a child Mary would have learnt right from wrong by making some mistakes?
Not mortal ones, but “human” ones.
D
davidv
Guest
Mary was human not supernatural. So, it is in an natual sense not a supernatual sense. Her yes was a human yes. All of us have sufficient grace to declare and carry out the same yes.
What do mistakes have to do with this? Sins are purposeful, not mistakes.
- Status