Catholics Say the Garden of Eden Wasn't Real

[CatherineofA]

I have a lot of respect for the church and was dumbfounded recently by a comment that was made by two Catholic women. It was in reference to a local Catholic school and parish that promote the Garden of Eden was not real, but symbolic or a metaphor or a lesson.

1. Does the church teach this or are these people being misguided by information that would be against what the church promotes?
2. If what they think is true, how long has this been the church’s position? I just don’t see this as being their position in previous eras.

 

[twopekinguys]

I believe they are confused.

If we didn’t believe in the Garden of Eden, we wouldn’t believe in Original Sin, or Adam and Eve.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is perfectly ok in Catholicism to understand the creation account as spiritual allegory. As far as I know there are Fathers who understand it this way and do not understand it as historical narrative, so that is going back all the way, really. There were also Jewish theologians who understood it the same way.

Of course, many also thought that it was historical narrative. Both positions are compatible with Catholisism.

It is helpful to remember that Biblical literalism is a recent thing, a post-Enlightenment phenomena.

 

[CatherineofA]

It is perfectly ok in Catholicism to understand the creation account as spiritual allegory. As far as I know there are Fathers who understand it this way and do not understand it as historical narrative, so that is going back all the way, really. There were also Jewish theologians who understood it the same way.

Of course, many also thought that it was historical narrative. Both positions are compatible with Catholisism.

It is helpful to remember that Biblical literalism is a recent thing, a post-Enlightenment phenomena.

Where do you see the allegory position as being far back in church teaching? When?

Frankly, I don’t see how this allegory position works. It makes tradition and scripture fall apart. Original Sin had to start with someone. I wonder if this position is an answer to ideas on evolution.

 

[doanli]

I have a lot of respect for the church and was dumbfounded recently by a comment that was made by two Catholic women. It was in reference to a local Catholic school and parish that promote the Garden of Eden was not real, but symbolic or a metaphor or a lesson.

1. Does the church teach this or are these people being misguided by information that would be against what the church promotes?
2. If what they think is true, how long has this been the church’s position? I just don’t see this as being their position in previous eras.

Not surprised.

There are Roman Catholic priests who say the Miracle of the Fish and Loaves didn’t happen; it was due to the “generosity” of Christ’s audience that day.

 

[Contarini]

Where do you see the allegory position as being far back in church teaching? When?

The first explicit statement of it is in Origen. Granted, Origen was controversial.

Frankly, I don’t see how this allegory position works. It makes tradition and scripture fall apart. Original Sin had to start with someone.

Why does the story need to be literal for it to be a true account of the origins of human sinfulness?

I should add that Karl Barth would disagree with you. He would say that humans have always been sinful and that the “unfallen” creation is humanity as it is in Christ. However, this is clearly not the official Catholic view.

As I understand the Catholic position, it does indeed teach that original sin began with someone, and that Genesis is the true story of how this happens. But true and literal are not the same thing.

I wonder if this position is an answer to ideas on evolution.

The fact that Origen held it shows that it is not dependent on any modern theory. However, it has certainly become more accepted in modern times, partly because of modern scientific theories (particularly evolution), but also because of a sensitivity to the cultural context of the story and to the literary genres used in the Bible.

The genre of Genesis 1-11 is clearly not history, but something more like myth, especially in the early portions of the narrative.

Edwin

 

[Corki]

**It is perfectly ok in Catholicism to understand the creation account as spiritual allegory. ** As far as I know there are Fathers who understand it this way and do not understand it as historical narrative, so that is going back all the way, really. There were also Jewish theologians who understood it the same way.

Of course, many also thought that it was historical narrative. Both positions are compatible with Catholisism.

It is helpful to remember that Biblical literalism is a recent thing, a post-Enlightenment phenomena.

Not all of it. Catholics must accept that humanity descended from a pair of first parents, whose sin we inherit as original sin.

As for the Garden of Eden, we can believe it to be a geographical place or a representation of the state of our first parents living before Original sin.

 

[Bluegoat]

Where do you see the allegory position as being far back in church teaching? When?

Frankly, I don’t see how this allegory position works. It makes tradition and scripture fall apart. Original Sin had to start with someone. I wonder if this position is an answer to ideas on evolution.

I don’t see how it makes Tradition and Scripture fall apart at all. It may help point to why Tradition is important.

St Augustine didn’t understand the Genesis account of creation as being a literal account, and unlike Origin, he isn’t controversial.

 

[dnu]

Several of the Early Fathers from the East began suggesting the First 11 Chapters of the book of Genesis were allegorical as early as the second and third centuries. It is only the Westerners and, more recently, the Fundemental Protest sects that seem to “require” a literal reading of the first book of the Hebrew Scripture.

Those of us who have taken to time to study the history of western society and the ancient world know that most of the first 11 chapters of Geneis are “borrowed” from other ancient stories from other cultures.

I don’t get too worked up over the small details, though some do for some reason.

 

[ljubim]

It is perfectly ok in Catholicism to understand the creation account as spiritual allegory.

Says an… Anglican?

The first man and the first woman DID exist (Church teaching). Remember, most Catholics today are very confused when it comes to their faith (either they were taught well and then later influenced, or weren’t taught at all.) Just gently correct their mistakes.

 

[po18guy]

Where do you see the allegory position as being far back in church teaching? When?

Frankly, I don’t see how this allegory position works. It makes tradition and scripture fall apart. Original Sin had to start with someone. I wonder if this position is an answer to ideas on evolution.

Original sin had to begin with only two humans. Some put forth the idea of many Adams and Eves, but this stands up neither to scripture, nor to DNA analysis. The Church claims not to know about that which has not been revealed. She judges it only by God’s loving nature, and how He has acted in creation history. For about $10 or less, you can obtain a paperback catechism, and browse it at your leisure. Nothing like getting your information from the horse’s mouth.

 

[KShaft]

There may have been scribes in the past that thought that the first books were not literal but they are not in the majority. The parallels between other ‘legends’ can easily be accountable the the possibility that the events actually occurred and other cultures handed down the story in a different(due to misunderstanding) or intentionally corrupted manner. The Creation story parallels other creation stories in only minor ways. The Genesis story is unique and at odds with most others including the order in which creatures were created. Typically man would be first and the creatures created afterward. This is of course opposite and to our limited knowledge correct scientifically and the Genesis account. Also the special care and intimate relationship between man(and of course woman) and the Creator is vacant in other stories. You can write a book on this stuff so Ill stop it here.

Genetic studies now think that there were two ancestors to the Human race. Not a bunch of monkeys evolving everywhere to something nearly exactly the same all over the earth for millions of years. Even if macro-evolution were possible (which it isnt DNA sequences to make new proteins are so mathematically impossible for a single one even based off of already existing proteins its ridiculous, and this would have to happen over and over and over millions of times in the proper sequence and there is NO transitory evidence at all in the fossil records) there would be many different evolutions, not something that eventually evolves exactly the same everywhere. I personally think that people who believe the Genesis account is just a story trust more in the words of godless men than the Word of the Creator. Evolution is more of a faith than Christianity. DNA, lack of transitory fossils of any kind, thermodynamics, the improbability of the Miller experiment, irreducible complexity etc… reduce the hypothesis of evolution to nothing.
The reason this is pushed in schools is simple. The ones pushing it are of a worldview that are godless and want Him removed. Just look at kids nowadays. They don’t even know about stories in the Bible. It wasn’t like that in my day, and my day wasn’t that long ago. Every kid in my school believed in the Creator or at least had been brought up in that tradition.

Also if you believe at all in the infallible nature of the Church, then the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich confirm the actual happenings of what is described in Genesis. Unless you think those visions were just the Lords little “story to make the Jews feel better…” ‘Watch this part Anne, wow! there goes Satan! Like those effects?! This IS all in your mind, get it? And they say I dont have a sense of humor…’

You say one part is just a story, then you say the prophecies were written after the fact, then you say Christ’s story was embellished even though the apostles were all executed (but John) over an embellished story to make people just ‘live better’. Then the whole bible becomes a moral guide story, or just another ‘religion’. With friends like this who needs enemies.

 

[CWBetts]

The Garden of Eden most Certainly was real. It was the site of the first covenant between God and Man, and if one reads closely, Edenic imagery is recapitulated in the Temple in Jerusalem, and again t the Temptation of Christ in the Desert, and yet again in Revelation. To write something off as “allegory” which is foundational to our faith is inconceivable.

 

[Bluegoat]

Says an… Anglican?

The first man and the first woman DID exist (Church teaching). Remember, most Catholics today are very confused when it comes to their faith (either they were taught well and then later influenced, or weren’t taught at all.) Just gently correct their mistakes.

Does it matter if I’m an Anglican if it is indeed what the CC says?

I am aware that they also say that there must be two real first ancestors. But that seemed to be going off topic and likely to take the discussion away from the difficulty the OP was having, so I didn’t mention it.

 

[CWBetts]

Does it matter if I’m an Anglican if it is indeed what the CC says?

I am aware that they also say that there must be two real first ancestors. But that seemed to be going off topic and likely to take the discussion away from the difficulty the OP was having, so I didn’t mention it.

Don’t you find it just a tiny bit presumptuous? “I’m not a Catholic, but I am going to tel Catholics what they believe.”

 

[Zatzat]

Why do you think God didn’t have the authors write something along the lines of ’ This is an accuarate and historical account of creation and mans fall into sin’

Or

’ This is a metaphor or allegory to explain origins ’

Would that not have cleared up all future diasagreements amongst Christians?

What do you think? I ask, because I don’t if it’s intended to be historical or metaphorical.

 

[pinay]

Don’t you find it just a tiny bit presumptuous? “I’m not a Catholic, but I am going to tel Catholics what they believe.”

Catholics do it to Mormons all the time in this forum. Just saying…

 

[SirThomasMore]

Catholics do it to Mormons all the time in this forum. Just saying…

Joe Smith taught the Garden of Eden is in Missouri.

Guess the apple DOES fall far from the tree

 

[prodigal-sun]

The Garden of Eden most Certainly was real. It was the site of the first covenant between God and Man, and if one reads closely, Edenic imagery is recapitulated in the Temple in Jerusalem, and again t the Temptation of Christ in the Desert, and yet again in Revelation. To write something off as “allegory” which is foundational to our faith is inconceivable.

You may indeed believe this to be true and there is nothing wrong with that belief, but the church has not definitivley ruled on this. As a Catholic you can believe this to be true or not. Adam and Eve were certainly real. Eden might very well be referencing the relationship our first ancestors had with the land and animals rather than a specific place on the earth that they were banished from never to return.

Peace!

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Also if you believe at all in the infallible nature of the Church, then the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich confirm the actual happenings of what is described in Genesis.

Never heard of her. Started reading. Wow (in a good way). It’s amazing!