Animals Eat Other Animals Before the Fall?

[excubitor]

I’m not sure why I am surprised. I guess I should expect different opinions when there is room to disagree.

In Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 97, Aquinas echoed Augustine and said,

"Thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal in the state of innocence. For, as Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19 [Work of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of http://forums.catholic-questions.org/../cathen/02084a.htm”]St. Augustine

): “God made man immortal as long as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or death.” For man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained (76, 1), it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter."

One of the main objections (to animals eating each other before the fall) that I saw in this thread was that there was absolutely no death before the fall. What I am inferring is that animals did not possess the “supernatural force in the soul” from God before or after the fall. Therefore, they never possessed immortality. Therefore, animals died before the fall.

Based on Aquinas’ argument, I could also infer that animals would have only been given immortality if they had a rational soul. I doubt anyone wants to go that far…

I guess we have Augustine and Aquinas on our side!
How does this indicate that Aquinas believed that animals were eaten before the fall?

You cannot base an emphatic statement upon an inference. You can surmise that animals did not have “power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter” but you have no evidence. You seem to be inferring that the Fall had no repercussions upon the corporeal matter of the creatures when the scripture plainly states that it did.

 

[tafan]

I actually hate talking about it. I mean, I would love it if we all agreed! But I hate the fighting. But not having as much time to spend here is a good excuse. And the ban on Evolution also works in my favor! But yea, sometimes duty calls…

Even if you are a supporter of evolution, and given as a fact your signature line, you are not correct that there was no death in the world prior to the fall. The traditional catholic teaching is that death is part of nature. But prior to the fall, man was given the preternatural gift of immortality. This was associated with man’s supernatural soul. The preternatural gifts that God gave man were lost at the fall. Man’s bodily nature was to die, just as animals nature was to die. Man would not have died had he not fallen. Animals did before the fall.

 

[excubitor]

Even if you are a supporter of evolution, and given as a fact your signature line, you are not correct that there was no death in the world prior to the fall. The traditional catholic teaching is that death is part of nature. But prior to the fall, man was given the preternatural gift of immortality. This was associated with man’s supernatural soul. The preternatural gifts that God gave man were lost at the fall. Man’s bodily nature was to die, just as animals nature was to die. Man would not have died had he not fallen. Animals did before the fall.

Could you please show how that the traditional teaching of the church is that man was subject to death and then was later given the preternatural gift of immortality which he then subsequently lost again at the fall, which he then gained again through Christ.

How can it be said that death entered into the world through Adam’s sin, if indeed animals died before the fall. That is an utter contradiction.

 

[Wowbagger]

Mmmm, broccoli…

The Trend Following Blog of Author Michael Covel

 

[geoformeo]

I have some thoughts on this. Disclaimer: I am not a theologian.

I was just raised by them.

The way I hear it told, Adam and Eve were not necessarily enslaved to physical laws until the Fall. They were given enormous spiritual gifts, some of which – such as the gift of immortality – clearly contradict the universal law that matter decays. They were, in a very a real, metaphysical manner, raised up above the Earth and given dominion over it. The spirit was the true master of the flesh. The Fall brought them crashing back down to Earth. Our spirits have been slaves to the flesh (as Paul often and loudly writes) ever since.

We saw this when Christ was raised from the dead. The Gospels speak quite clearly about how the Risen Lord walked through walls, veiled himself from his disciples on the road to Emmaus, and did various other things that are clearly impossible for normal physical bodies to do. This is because the Resurrected Body of Christ was a redemption of fallen human flesh to its perternatural state – and a prefigurement of the resurrected bodies that await us all when the Lord returns and the world is remade. (Alleluia, alleluia.)

So, yes, Adam and Eve could have fallen off a cliff. But they would not have died… until the Fall brought Man back down to the level of the beasts and we, too, began to eat from the trough of Death.

When every man has, literally, supernatural powers, resources become much less of a problem. When every man can also just take five minutes off of his busy day to talk directly to God (as apparently was possible for Man before the Fall, perhaps because our preternatural bodies were able to see Him with eyes infused with the spirit), you can work out any space problems pretty fast.

I don’t think Our Lady ever actually died, as such. That’s why they call it the “dormition” of Mary. And, then, of course, she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. That’s a fairly minor point, though. Much more important is the death of Christ. Now, Aquinas argues that Christ took on the defects and infirmities of fallen Man as part of His Incarnation not because it was necessary, but because without taking on the infirmities of fallen Man (including death), he could not assume the punishment for sin and he could not complete his mission of redemption. This seems reasonable to me. Summa article linked here.

So, yeah. Mankind did not die before the Fall. All of it sounds kind of flashy and even cartoonish (“preternatural Man had superpowers?!”), but all of it is quite logical and reasonable when carefully considered. Like much of our Faith, it sounds odd until suddenly it’s the only thing that makes sense anymore.

Wowbagger,

Thank you for the wonderful insights. That definitely clarifies things a lot better for me. I guess I never thought of the pre-fallen Adam and Eve as having equivalent bodily characteristics as the risen Jesus before, but it makes sense and conforms to all the data. It also explains the resources issue sufficiently, though what about limited space?

Another question I have again comes back to Our Lady. Though she may not have died, why did she not possess these preternatural bodily characteristics? For all we know she may have had them, but there is no indication whatsoever in the Gospels that she did and I would think that that would be have been something that should have been recorded, especially since John lived with her until her dormition.

And what about aging? Are we to assume that in the preternatural state that we would have aged up to a certain point and then remained the same with no degeneration thereafter? If that is the case, then why again did Our Lady age to old age?

Thanks again for your insights.

 

[geoformeo]

I didn’t know that you taught in a classroom, I was referring to teaching it here. And I was charitable in assuming that you simply didn’t know the Church’s teaching, not that you had rejected it. And I don’t have “disdain for all scientific things and people” for crying out loud! Talk about uncharitable…

Since when is expressing one’s opinion or thoughts equivalent to “teaching”? Last I checked, my post did not have “You must believe…” or “the Church teaches that…” or “This is the way it is…”. Rather, it expressly said “I believe…” I was posting my rational thoughts, not requiring conformity to the particular belief structure that I held at the time (which has subsequently been modified).

I guess that is one of the pitfalls of internet dialogue. Way too much is read into and assumed.

 

[geoformeo]

Much as I would love to get into an discussion about how the entire miles-deep, insanely rich, carbon-dated fossil record could have come into existence entirely within a 150-day period in the 3900’s BC, evolution arguments are currently banned. So I’ll have to leave that be.

Moreover, it sounds as though the entire anti-perternatural carnivore camp (including edwest?) is also anti-evolution, and is based entirely on anti-evolutionism and the overinterpretation of Scriptural passages to support that opinion. Because of the ban, I can’t argue the point, and so I must gracefully retire.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who fall into that camp are so completely ignorant to the findings of science, as if they didn’t matter. It’s the whole “the devil put the fossils there to trick us and test our faith” motif. Yeah, and Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a (vegetarian) raptor.

 

[TommyWommy]

Mmmm, broccoli…

The Trend Following Blog of Author Michael Covel

rossum

Here’s what I’m trying to understand: How does Adam and Eve running for their lives from carniverous beasts equate to “paradise.” I’m not being smug, I genuinely am wondering how it works with the science and the theology. In Genesis, how does one make the “truth,” the “symbolism” and the science all “work” without contridictions? What parts are “real history” and what parts are “symbolic.” And where does the paradise of Eden enter into it?

 

[edwest2]

It never ceases to amaze me how those who fall into that camp are so completely ignorant to the findings of science, as if they didn’t matter. It’s the whole “the devil put the fossils there to trick us and test our faith” motif. Yeah, and Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a (vegetarian) raptor.

There is a big difference between what Catholics actually believe and the propaganda that is common on the internet.

“the findings of science” have little, if anything, to do with the work of God. I say that those who consider some Christians as ‘anti-science’ should consider all of the attributes of God. First, God has supernatural powers. Jesus raised the dead, cleansed the lepers and gave sight to the blind without using science and technology. Once you understand that then you can see that science, as such, simply does not matter in most cases.

“completely ignorant”? That is called a generalization. I study so much science that people actually avoid me because they’re afraid I might start talking about it. Please don’t generalize.

God bless,
Ed

 

[TommyWommy]

Maybe this is how things were set up. As long as Adam and Eve stayed on the path like the sign says, then they were fine. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was on the other side of the ropes.

 

[geoformeo]

“the findings of science” have little, if anything, to do with the work of God.

I hate to say this, but in all seriousness how can you call yourself a Christian (let alone a Catholic) and hold this view? Science has everything to do with the work of God, as science reveals His Creation, which is “good”. The natural laws, upon which science is based, are part of God’s Creation, and therefore “good” and under His control and supervision.

That statement has got to be one of the most absurd things I’ve heard from a fellow Catholic. So who, in your opinion, is in control of the natural laws Ed? How does God being somehow separated from the natural laws square with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God?

Science does not “make up” natural truth, but reveals it. And in case you forgot, Truth is the person of Jesus Christ. Not just spiritual or supernatural truth, but all truth, including the material truths discovered by science.

I say that those who consider some Christians as ‘anti-science’ should consider all of the attributes of God. First, God has supernatural powers. Jesus raised the dead, cleansed the lepers and gave sight to the blind without using science and technology. Once you understand that then you can see that science, as such, simply does not matter in most cases.

I would ask that you take some of your own advice about considering all the attributes of God, and understand that God is not restricted to the supernatural. Saying so puts limits on God, which is a self-contradiction of God’s nature. After all, did not a supernatural God create a natural universe? Or do you believe that everything we are experiencing here on Earth is a facade? If so, you are more in line with New Age thinking.

For crying out loud, Ed, Jesus (God) became a physical part of existence. Sure, He did some supernatural miracles, as He was certainly permitted to do, but do you really think in the course of His whole life that all He did was to act supernaturally? Surely He did more natural works (carpentry and teaching) than supernatural ones.

“completely ignorant”? That is called a generalization. I study so much science that people actually avoid me because they’re afraid I might start talking about it. Please don’t generalize.

You are correct in that it is a generalization, but one that unfortunately I think is warranted in this case. You have done nothing in your responses first to Wowbagger and now to me that have shown differently. I am not in the least bit afraid of you to start talking science, and I sincerely hope you actually do without any pseudoscientific garbage.

I do wish you a blessed Sunday. (No, I am not patronizing, I mean it sincerely).

 

[Wowbagger]

I guess I never thought of the pre-fallen Adam and Eve as having equivalent bodily characteristics as the risen Jesus before, but it makes sense and conforms to all the data. It also explains the resources issue sufficiently, though what about limited space?

Well, mentioning once again the caveat that I am not a theologian, and that my take on preternatural Man is more speculative than I would like, I’ll admit I’m very gratified that my thoughts were helpful. I’ve never seen the space problem as a severe one, for several reasons: first, there is quite a lot more space on this planet than population control people like to claim. The square footage of Texas (land only) is about 7,298,481,484,800 (~7 trillion). There are 7 billion people in the world right now. That means we could put everyone in the world in Texas, divide up all the land evenly, and every single person alive would get about 1,000 square feet – enough room for a smallish two-bedroom apartment (for each person!). Obviously, if 107 billion people have ever lived, as in some estimates, things get a little tighter, but you can still comfortably fit everybody who ever lived into the Southern United States. And remember: this is just land area for individuals. If you build two-story buildings, you double your square footage. Three-story buildings: tripled. If you’re a family, your family combines all its individual square footage into one very large footprint. And every other part of the world – the rest of the U.S., Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia – is all completely empty, because everyone has moved to Texas. So, space? Not a big a problem as the population control people would like you to fear. Especially if resources aren’t a big deal.

Eventually, of course, we will simply run out of space here on Earth. Even with a death rate of 0%, this would take a long, long, long time, but it will happen (probably centuries from now, if not longer). But God did not create just one planet. He created a universe, filled with riches and beauty we have yet to imagine. I assume that Man, had he not fallen, would have used the great gifts of intellect God gave him to discover and create new technologies, just as we do today – only unfallen Man would be much better at it than us. I hope we would explore space even if we hadn’t Fallen. But, if Earth’s population ever became a problem – which would take a very, very long time, as shown above – mankind could travel the stars to seek, convert, or create new Earths. Our growth potential once we achieve interstellar spaceflight is essentially limitless.

Finally, if somehow people did start suddenly running out of room, it’s important to remember that, before the Fall, humans apparently had direct-line access to God Himself. They could just ask him to make the Earth bigger, and, bam, lightning bolt, problem solved. That sounds like a cheat answer, I know, but it seems to also have been true.

Another question I have again comes back to Our Lady. Though she may not have died, why did she not possess these preternatural bodily characteristics?

There is a lot I do not understand about the Immaculate Conception. If it weren’t dogma, I don’t think I’d believe it. It creates all sorts of messy theological problems about the inheritance of Adam’s sin and divine intervention and human attributes and things. All I can really say is that I’m thinking about it. And also that it’s 5 AM over here, so my brain is not working at full capacity right now.

My best guess is that Mary was given the great gift of being spared original sin, but was not given the many gifts that accompanied that at the beginning. The powers of perternatural man were linked to his lack of original sin, but they were nonetheless separate. When Mary was Immacuately Conceived, I speculate that God kindly removed the stain of original sin from her creation, but left her body otherwise intact, with all the infirmities and limits we inherited from material creation, without any of the spiritual gifts that Adam and Eve enjoyed.

But, again, that’s just a post-5AM guess. I really really need to go to sleep now before this post descends into pure typo-ridden nonsense. Good night!

For all we know she may have had them, but there is no indication whatsoever in the Gospels that she did and I would think that that would be have been something that should have been recorded, especially since John lived with her until her dormition.

And what about aging? Are we to assume that in the preternatural state that we would have aged up to a certain point and then remained the same with no degeneration thereafter? If that is the case, then why again did Our Lady age to old age?

Thanks again for your insights.

 

[zdon011]

I guess I never thought of the pre-fallen Adam and Eve as having equivalent bodily characteristics as the risen Jesus before, but it makes sense and conforms to all the data.

There is an interesting tradition in the Eastern Church that, since Jesus received all his ‘humanity’ (we might say DNA) from Our Lady, he closely resembled her, and that both of them physically resembled Adam. This is mentioned by Epiphanius Monachus (8th century monk), a letter to Emperor Theophilus on Icons (attributed to St John of Damascus), Nicephorus Callistus’ Historia Ecclesiastica, and in Byzantine painting manuals by Elpios Romaios and Dionysius of Fourna.

In section 137 of Chapter 9 in ‘The Mystical City of God’, Ven. Mary of Agreda also says that Our Lord was physically identical to Adam, based on her revelations.