Before the fall were Adam and Eve able to have children?

[LittleWay16]

, yes, I do believe Irenaeus had a more accurate answer to this question as he was far closer to the original source.

Being “closer to the source” doesn’t really make his argument more valid. He still lived WAY after Adam and Eve. I was born closer to the time of Adam and Eve than my younger siblings, but that doesn’t mean that I know any more about them than my siblings do. We are talking thousands of years between Irenaeus and the time of Adam and Eve. At that point, so much time has passed that adding another 1800 years or so doesn’t really change much between the time of Irenaeus and JPII in terms of being “close to the source”.

 

[thedweh]

Being “closer to the source” doesn’t really make his argument more valid. He still lived WAY after Adam and Eve. I was born closer to the time of Adam and Eve than my younger siblings, but that doesn’t mean that I know any more about them than my siblings do. We are talking thousands of years between Irenaeus and the time of Adam and Eve. At that point, so much time has passed that adding another 1800 years or so doesn’t really change much between the time of Irenaeus and JPII in terms of being “close to the source

The source I was referring to was the source of truth- Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are Catholic, the foundation of your church is “apostolic succecssion” and “traditions handed down by the apostles”. You can’t get much closer to the apostles and their original teachings than Irenaeus, he was a deciple of Polycarp who was a deciple of John the apostle.

Your understanding of what makes for true Church teaching is deeply flawed.
Such hubris simply to support a mistaken view of Genesis. The question has always been speculative. Various views have always existed and Irenaeus’s clearly fell from favour and is not mainstream. That is simply a given and if you cannot accept that you have issues that noone can assist you with. It signals a view of sin that had been rejected by the Church though it keeps popping up again through history…most recently in French Jansenism.

As I say its ultimately speculation and therefore like questions of usury, slavery, Communion for soldiers or traditores its a work in progress of consensus making. There is no secret knowledge not in the Bible but handed down from the Apostles from Jesus himself. Thats a foolish notion. Nor is the holiness of the opinion of the Apostles any more helpful than that of theologians after them in deciding the matter. Its more like a teaching based on circumstantial evidence, a more subtle process.

In short, time, much debate and the Magisterium have settled the matter. And the great consensus from the early Middle Ages is that a best understanding of Genesis and related theological teachings requires for reasons of best harmony and consonancy the view that Adam and Eve were mature adults in Eden at the time of their Fall. They possessed infused knowledge even of natural truths. As many commentators have noted, the act of naming the animals demands such knowledge of the naturalorder. These are not children.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This was the tradition handed down from the apostles in Irenaeus’s day. Why did the tradition change several centuries later?

What does it matter. If it was rejected by the Church universal it was never “tradition” and clearly your assertion it was secretly handed down by the apostles is mistaken. Clearly it was born of indirect speculation not clear apostolic “facts”.

 

[thedweh]

Clearly if you have to appeal to the position of The Magisterium (evolving consensus) says so, thus it is Fact, you have no ability to logically think for yourself and appeal instead to the holy spirit. Surely your source of truth isn’t what Jesus had in mind when he said “blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood” (the magisterium, philosophy) “has not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven”(holy spirit, revelation)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

if you have to appeal to the position of The Magisterium (evolving consensus) says so, thus it is Fact, you have no ability to logically think for yourself and appeal instead to the holy spirit. Surely your source of truth isn’t what Jesus had in mind when he said “blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood” (the

Ah, I see the difficulty.
You are reasoning like a Protestant, though substituting “Sola Scriptura” with “Sola Scientia Apostolicorum”.

Yet the Protestant problem remains…who says your understanding of ambiguous Scripture (or the inspirations of the HS) is correct while others is not?

The Catholic answer is of course the living Magisterium…which you rightly observe that I appeal to.

Yes, I do logically think for myself. As did 1700 years worth of theologians who disagreed with Irenaeus, and reached the same conclusion I have aired here. And they have been backed by the Magisterium to boot.

As I mentioned, Adam and Eve named the animals.
In Jewish understanding, naming is a very significant act, it implies mastery over and knowledge of the object named.
Therefore Adam and Eve were perfected in knowledge about the natural order and were adults.

So I see no conflict at all between discounting your simplistic view of “secret apostolic knowledge imparted to Irenaues”, using my head, and also accepting the 1700 year mainstream teaching of the Magisterium.
Namely:

• Adam and Eve were adults
• Adam and Eve had full knowledge about sex.
• They were not ashamed of their genitals or embarrassed by untoward motions of the flesh before the Fall.
• After the Fall their desire for clothing was born not of suddenly understanding what the genitals are for (and somehow being embarrassed by that) but by losing control over their bodies and being ashamed of their weakness.

This sums up the whole issue of the Fall.
They wanted to be like as God (in full and independent control of their lives) which is not given to creratures.
In failing in this matter punishment was delivered into their own bodies by a further loss of the already limited control over their lives that they did actually enjoy. Concupiscence.

That they sought clothes reveals their still sinful intent…a desire not to recognise the dependence and limitation of human freedom and that this is good and as it should be.

There is really no more light to be shed on this manifestly clear conclusion:

 

[Gorgias]

Do you know what else John Paul II taught as pope?

That Marcial Maciel was a good and decent man, worthy of the highest acclaims and offices of the Catholic church. Obvously, he was wrong about that.

Aah, but that wasn’t a ‘teaching’, nor was it on a doctrinal matter of ‘faith and morals’. It was a prudential judgment. And therefore, it isn’t covered by ‘infallibility’. Just like every other person on the face of the earth, popes can make errors in prudential judgment.

The quote you provided is not defined as infallible/ dogmatic, nither are the quotes from Irenaeus.

However, the quote I provided is a teaching from a sitting pope on matters of doctrine. That might not be “infallible”, but it’s certainly got authority…

since you asked the question, yes, I do believe Irenaeus had a more accurate answer to this question as he was far closer to the original source.

Interesting. So, by that standard, John XXIII was more accurate than Paul VI, who was more accurate than JP I, who was more accurate than JP II, who is more accurate than Francis… just because they’re “closer to the source”? (Arius was “closer to the source” than JP II, also. Would you likewise call him “more accurate”?) That’s poor logic.

 

[Zaccheus]

You are Catholic, the foundation of your church is “apostolic succecssion” and “traditions handed down by the apostles”.

Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of Mother Church guided by the Holy Spirit). We do not neglect the Bible.
And the reason we hold to the Apostolic Succession is because Scripture, Tradition and Mother Church teach us that it is valid.

Certainly we respect the earlier scholars and churchmen, but we don’t hold them to be infallible.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think this is a pretty interesting question.

Much of it comes down to an interpretation of Genesis 2:25

“The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.”

We would be remiss not to look at what John Paul II had to say about these passages. As has been referred to previously above, he talks about this passage across multiple general audiences in his “Theology of the Body.” Look particularly at the audiences 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17 (December 12, 1979–February 6, 1980).

I’d recommend reading John Paul II’s excellent reflection on Original Innocence in these audiences. Them being “naked without shame” is not so much a commentary on their ignorance of the way their body works as it is a description of how they viewed each other through sinless eyes—really, viewing each other from the divine perspective. There was no need for shame because they weren’t subject to sin. They weren’t prone to use each other or objectify the other.

I imagine there is room for differing theological interpretations of the verse, but I think some explanations are more likely than others. It is true that there is no mention of children before the Fall. But then, immediately prior to this verse, it is said “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” How do they “become one body” without the marital embrace? How are they to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28)? It doesn’t seem likely to me that they were not capable of having children prior to the Fall, even if they happened to not have had any children before the Fall. Otherwise, how would they have accomplished these things?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think I disagree. These days, with the wearing of clothing so deeply ingrained in the way we live our lives, the mere absence of clothes – that is, the mere visibility of the other gender’s exposed body – elicits a sexual response.

However, the phenomenon of ‘nude beaches’ provides an interesting contrast. For many, being in the presence of nude people of the opposite gender doesn’t create an instant sexual response. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that these folks’ equipment doesn’t work (or that they don’t know how to use the equipment). Rather, it simply means that the mere absence of clothing doesn’t automatically create a sexual response… just like back in the days of Adam and Eve.

There are plenty of cultures where nudity of the sort that would be considered sexually suggestive in other parts of the world, doesn’t automatically do so in the other culture. And in some cases, they get sexually aroused by seeing some body part that we consider neutral and walk around showing on a regular basis. Back in Victorian days, the sight of an ankle was considered arousing. Our responses to nudity are largely learned or are products of the culture. When one spends a lot of time around nude people, or around particular nude people, just being without clothes becomes rather neutral, or can convey messages other than sexy time.

 

[Benadam]

The natural powers were subject to the intellect before the fall. Sexual arousal wouldn’t happen without permission from the will. After the fall Adam and Eve experienced involuntary movements of the body and this made them ashamed.

 

[on_the_hill]

Zebras, orangutans, catfish—none of them wear clothes, yet all of them are fruitful and multiply. It would’ve been the same for Adam & Eve.

 

[on_the_hill]

You’re assuming that sexual attraction is entirely visual. It’s not as simple as “me like what me see.” I would be willing to bet that back during those days homo sapiens would’ve been a lot more attuned to other cues indicating fertility that we are completely unaware of now.

Also, how much time passed between the creation of Eve and the event with the apple? Was it an hour? A day? A year? Did Adam and Eve have time to attempt procreation before The Fall? Not to be overly facetious, but generally a couple needs some time to get to know one another before they attempt procreation.

The natural powers were subject to the intellect before the fall. Sexual arousal wouldn’t happen without permission from the will. After the fall Adam and Eve experienced involuntary movements of the body and this made them ashamed.

People are ashamed of involuntary movements because they assume other people ascribe those movements to involuntary intentions. And of course sexual arousal can occur without involvement of the will. We’re conscious of ‘willing’ arousal as a learned behavior from people around us.

Sexual arousal is both a natural, instinctual, and to a large extent uncontrollable function of living creatures, and a willed response to external stimuli. I submit that our efforts to control sexual arousal come from the knowledge that an undisciplined sexual drive (and it is a natural, God-given biological drive) can lead to all sorts of problems.

Sex is designed to be pleasurable such that humans want to do it and are willing to make a whole lot of sacrifices to do it. Our control of those urges is what makes us aware of those urges.

 

[Benadam]

You are not considering the profound difference in how the body is experienced before the fall verses after the fall. There were no uncontrollable urges before the fall. No urges coming from natural powers to obstruct freedom of will.