Can I stay Catholic and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[DetectiveNiko]

I was more making a logical deduction with a bit of science rather than a scientific one.
Though I would imagine the statistics speak by themselves as well if you take historical records of 10 years ago compared to today.

 

[twf]

Huh. All these years I thought Adam And Eve were listed in the Roman Martyrology for December 24, but I don’t see them there. I did some Googling and it looks like Dec 24 is indeed their feast in the Eastern tradition, and by popular practice in the Western tradition: From Glory into Glory: December 24: Adam & Eve

 

[edwest211]

Pope Pius XII – Humani Generis

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

No Original Sin, no reason for Jesus to be born.

 

[Vico]

What exaclty are the Church teachings on this, since I feel like we have backed ourselves up into a corner.
Everything points to the fact that never in the history of mankind was there only 2 people.
(Before you say : " But mitochondrial Eve ! " you should realize that even then there were more than a pair of people )
I also find the theory that God gave some random 2 humans a soul pretty random and farfetched even for someone like God who is omniscient.
I assume not believing in a literal Adam and Eve also creates problems with the purpose of baptism
To me what would make the most sense is if there exsisted many people originally and we just share a sinful nature. ( Jesus’s sacrifice could still be used in that way )
[I know someone posted a thread similliar recently, but it wasn’t that detailed and most people just answered with mitochondrial Eve and I don’t find that a satisfying answer ]
[ I am also entirely sorry ahead of time for making so many posts in last few days, I am on the verge of becoming agnostic and I want to try to clear this mess up by Christmas ]

The Church teaching allows that man’s body developed from other forms, through the guidance of God, but one must believe in the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII Humani Generis 36:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[edwest211]

Pope Benedict –

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."

 

[steve-b]

What exaclty are the Church teachings on this, since I feel like we have backed ourselves up into a corner.
Everything points to the fact that never in the history of mankind was there only 2 people.
(Before you say : " But mitochondrial Eve ! " you should realize that even then there were more than a pair of people )
I also find the theory that God gave some random 2 humans a soul pretty random and farfetched even for someone like God who is omniscient.
I assume not believing in a literal Adam and Eve also creates problems with the purpose of baptism
To me what would make the most sense is if there exsisted many people originally and we just share a sinful nature. ( Jesus’s sacrifice could still be used in that way )
[I know someone posted a thread similliar recently, but it wasn’t that detailed and most people just answered with mitochondrial Eve and I don’t find that a satisfying answer ]
[ I am also entirely sorry ahead of time for making so many posts in last few days, I am on the verge of becoming agnostic and I want to try to clear this mess up by Christmas ]

Re: belief

When Jesus gave the Bread of Life discourse, [ Jn 6 ]
most of Jesus “disciples” left Him, saying what He was teaching was too hard to even listen to. And what did Jesus say when they left? Jn6:60-66 RSVCE - The Words of Eternal Life - Many of his - Bible Gateway one of the scariest passages in all of scripture IMV. Because Jesus didn’t go after them. He let them go.

Main point being, not even God talking to people face to face could convince those without faith.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

whats wrong with God choosing 2 hominid people to give a soul? It’s not really random as you would think its the same as God choosing Moses to lead the Israelites or chooses Abraham to make his covenant all these may seem random but that’s what God does through out the bible he calls on people. So God willed/chose Adam and Eve as the first couple with a soul

 

[steve-b]

whats wrong with God choosing 2 hominid people to give a soul? It’s not really random as you would think its the same as God choosing Moses to lead the Israelites or chooses Abraham to make his covenant all these may seem random but that’s what God does through out the bible he calls on people. So God willed/chose Adam and Eve as the first couple with a soul

good post

From the CCC

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last.“225”

On an aside to this topic, I had a conversation with a Jewish poster years back about this section of Genesis and the creation of Adam and Eve. What I focused on was, he in particular, didn’t believe in the Trinity. So I quoted for him the following passage from Genesis. Genesis 1:26-27 RSVCE - Then God said, “Let us make man in - Bible Gateway

then asked him, Re: this plural imagery

“Then God said”

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;”

1. I asked him, who is “us” & “our” in that passage? What’s the plural all about?
2. Who else is there at this time, in that passage, in God’s creation process, in His words, “us” to create/make man in our image and our likeness ?
3. I said to him, We agree God is ONE. So where does Moses, the author of Genesis, get this plural understanding from, in this particular spot in the creation story?

He had no answer. Then I showed him again our teaching on the Trinity.

 

[adamhovey1988]

You know, it makes me really frustrated, when people imply that my namesake never existed. As a Catholic, you are required to believe that Adam and Eve are historical people, go read the catechism of the Catholic Church on this one, you are not required to believe that the Earth was made in 6 literal days. There would be no explanation for how sin came into the world, if Adam and Eve did not exist.

 

[steve-b]

whats wrong with God choosing 2 hominid people to give a soul? It’s not really random as you would think its the same as God choosing Moses to lead the Israelites or chooses Abraham to make his covenant all these may seem random but that’s what God does through out the bible he calls on people. So God willed/chose Adam and Eve as the first couple with a soul

In addition Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

 

[Gorgias]

You know, it makes me really frustrated, when people imply that my namesake never existed.

I agree. “Hovey1988” is a critical part of the Babylonian Exile narrative…

 

[DetectiveNiko]

You know, it makes me really frustrated, when people imply that my namesake never existed

You made me laugh so hard. Nice one

 

[edwest211]

It’s not Biblical.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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 parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

• Catholic Answers

 

[PJM]

LET GOD Be in Charge of your life!

FROM OUR CATECHISM

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

My friend your position places you precariously on the top of the VERY slippery and seep downward trip to hell.

No, none, zip, zero human being can exist without a Soul placed there by GOD

FROM FATHER HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

SOUL. The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being" END QUOTES

Isaiah 55: 8-9

[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."

Pray very much and reply less on YOUR logic

May God guide your path

 

[wiggbuggie1]

even the theory of God giving a soul has some loop holes maybe someone can clear up namely what happened to the other populations hominoids living in Africa or Europe? Its hard to think some had souls some didn’t. This is a topic that also challenges me dealing with adam and eve

 

[Gorgias]

A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

The notion of “ensoulment of two humans among a pool of unensouled (and therefore not truly human) hominins” fits the first claim without fitting the second. As such, it does not run afoul of the prohibition against polygenism.

 

[edwest211]

There is no convincing finding that this is true. How would anyone know? And what happened to these hominins/hominids?

 

[Gorgias]

There is no convincing finding that this is true.

Since there is no empirical method to identify the soul, there is no way to obtain such a ‘finding’. Therefore, the lack of such a finding does not prove or disprove anything.

How would anyone know?

Immaterial.

And what happened to these hominins/hominids?

Assimilated into human race (and therefore, their children would be ensouled) or died without producing human children. (Since the presence of a “truly human” parent results in a “truly human” child, it therefore acts in the way that “dominant genes” act. However, since there is no way for a “unensoulment” ‘recessive’ gene to exhibit, this ‘trait’ would necessarily die out.)

 

[wiggbuggie1]

that’s the issue I have how can large populations of homo sapiens hominids that weren’t ensouled die out across Africa and Europe and the only people left would be adam and eves devendents with souls across the world?

 

[Gorgias]

that’s the issue I have how can large populations of homo sapiens hominids that weren’t ensouled die out across Africa and Europe and the only people left would be adam and eves devendents with souls across the world?

First, remember that this is a thought experiment that attempts to bring the theology of the Church (which we hold to be true without doubt) into harmony with scientific theory (which the Church doesn’t offer opinions on).

With that in mind, there are a number of possibilities. One such idea is that the child of an ensouled hominin and an unensouled hominin would himself have a soul. Therefore, eventually, all hominins would be ensouled hominins. (For there to be a segment of unensouled hominins, we would need a population of individuals, none of which have souls.)

Other possibilities exist, as well, but the “did the unensouled hominins just die out” theory doesn’t seem particularly plausible…