Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[OneSheep]

The key problem is that the Church states certain things positively, but other things are not specified.

The key problem is that certain statements about the Adam and Eve story, such as “dominion of reason” cannot be supported theologically in terms of a benevolent God and anthropologically in terms of dignified humanity.

As has been demonstrated on this thread, when the assertions are scrutinized, they fall apart and run contrary to the Gospel.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Free will is important but not “key”.”
A. Free will is key because it allows for charity or malice in thoughts and actions.

Catechism

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.

You wrote: “The couple “freely” made an ignorant decision.”
A. The decision was sinful, mortally so, meaning with full knowledge.
Catechism

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “certain statements about the Adam and Eve story, such as “dominion of reason” cannot be supported theologically in terms of a benevolent God and anthropologically in terms of dignified humanity. As has been demonstrated on this thread, when the assertions are scrutinized, they fall apart and run contrary to the Gospel.”
A. I am referring to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. What dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church do you not accept because it runs contrary to the Gospel?

 

[OneSheep]

A. I am referring to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. What dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church do you not accept because it runs contrary to the Gospel?

Going by this list, which is not necessarily accurate:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/

There are many that do not appear to reflect the entire concept of “Abba”, a loving Father who cares for all His children, forgives all His children, and is never wrathful or angry at His children.

There is a great deal of internal contradiction, conflicting with this very important one:

1. God is infinitely merciful.

I’m going to stay with what the Linn’s say, “When scripture or doctrine present an image of God who loves you less than the person who loves you most, something is amiss.” The person who loves me most loves and forgives me unconditionally, and I love her the same way. She is my wife, and the Church says that marriage is the model of Jesus’ relationship with His Church.

So, to the degree that any dogma conflicts with #33, I would say that it appears to run contrary to the Gospel, therefore it is incomprehensible. My recommendation is that the Church continue to downplay any dogma that conflicts with #33.

Would you recommend that people who know God’s love in this way abandon the Church?

Or, do you recognize that an effort to make doctrine more accurately reflect that God’s love is as I described, as I have experienced (and many others also), a worthwhile one?

Note: nothing in the list of dogma asserts that Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite.

You wrote: “Free will is important but not “key”.”
A. Free will is key because it allows for charity or malice in thoughts and actions.

Your “answer” did not address the point I put forth.

A. The decision was sinful, mortally so, meaning with full knowledge.

Another assertion that does not address the many points I brought forth in this thread.

See post 798. If you would like to actually address one of those pairings, feel free. In the mean time, like I said, the assertions fall apart when scrutinized.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: "33. God is infinitely merciful. " and “So, to the degree that any dogma conflicts with #33, I would say that it appears to run contrary to the Gospel, therefore it is incomprehensible. My recommendation is that the Church continue to downplay any dogma that conflicts with #33.”
A. There is no conflict with the mercy of God and any dogma of the Church. There is a conflict perhaps with somebodies idea of mercy. God loves all and is merciful and merciful means healing. God will not override free will he has given to mankind. It is not unmerciful that some will not have the Beatific Vision by their own choice.

You wrote: “Or, do you recognize that an effort to make doctrine more accurately reflect that God’s love is as I described, as I have experienced (and many others also), a worthwhile one?”
A. For a revealed dogma of faith there can be progress. It does not conflict with the truth however.

You wrote: “Note: nothing in the list of dogma asserts that Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite.”
A. Yes it does contain that.
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with

• sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
• The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
• God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufliciens) for tile observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.)
• Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.
  (De fide.)

You wrote about full knowledge: “Another assertion that does not address the many points I brought forth in this thread.”
A. Not an assertion but a dogma of faith. Yes it does address the issue you keep raising of full knowledge.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “Or, do you recognize that an effort to make doctrine more accurately reflect that God’s love is as I described, as I have experienced (and many others also), a worthwhile one?”
A. For a revealed dogma of faith there can be progress. It does not conflict with the truth however.

And, when a general statement is made that conflicts with “God is infinitely merciful”, or “God created a good world”, then we can discern that there is some “progress” to be made!

For example, look at these pairings again, if you don’t mind:

Adam and Eve had “full knowledge”.
Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error.

In this pairing, if the second sentence is false, that is, if they did have the knowledge described, then the human being is incapable of learning, (of which learning is part of the goodness of human nature, and part of that learning is that it leads to wisdom, which guides the human). If the second statement is true, then they did not have full knowledge, only partial knowledge.

Neither of these scenarios uphold "Adam and Eve had ‘full knowledge’ as truth, unless they did not have “dominion of reason over appetite”.

Adam and Eve knew the “moral character” of their sin.
Adam and Eve did not know that their sin would result in harm done to billions of people.

If the second statement is true, then it begs the definition of “moral character”. A sin done to billions of people is far less moral than a sin done to oneself. If the second statement is false, that is, they did know that their sin would harm billions of people, we are again up against the idea that God created the world (including man) as “good”.

Neither of the scenarios uphold the first sentence as true, unless they did not have “dominion of reason over appetite”.

God is benevolent, infinitely more than any human.
God gave Adam and Eve less information than a benevolent parent would, as benevolent parents explain to their children how their acts would impact their own children and grandchildren, which they were sure to have.

If the second sentence is true, then it conflicts with God’s infinite mercy. If the second sentence is false, i.e. that Adam and Eve truly knew that their acts would harm their children and grandchildren, then it again conflicts with Adam and Eve’s “goodness” as described above.

Again, the first sentence cannot be upheld as true in either scenario unless the couple did not have “dominion of reason over appetite”.

In Conclusion, Vico, it can only be surmised that in the literal narrative Adam and Eve were subject to their appetites, just like ordinary people are subjected to their appetites. If it is asserted that they had “dominion of reason over appetite”, then the assertion conflicts with both God’s infinite mercy and His created goodness.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

Please feel free to find a glitch in my reasoning. Philosophy involves actual exercise of reason, not repeated assertions that are shown to be self-contradictory.

Am I to assume, at this point, that repeated assertions that do not address my points indicate you have no actual reasoned response?

 

[Vico]

…

…

Been over this a few times now. And you have seen from my previous posts the dogmatic statements and Catechism that provide what the Church has shown is the revealed truth. The issue addressed by the Church is remaining free from mortal sin through our cooperation with the grace of God. That is a gifted capability of dominion (control).

You wrote: "Adam and Eve had “full knowledge” [but] “If the second statement is true” [that] “If the second statement is true, then they did not have full knowledge, only partial knowledge.”
A. You first and second objections are assuming something that I did not say. Since the statement I posted from the Catechism and that I have been using throughout is that Adam and Even had full knowledge required for mortal sin, as described in the Catechism:

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. …

You wrote: “If the second statement is false, that is, they did know that their sin would harm billions of people, we are again up against the idea that God created the world (including man) as “good”.” also “”
A. God did not create the world in perfection, so no conflict. Catechism:

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. …

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Happy Sunday to you Vico

You wrote: "Adam and Eve had “full knowledge” [but] “If the second statement is true” [that] “If the second statement is true, then they did not have full knowledge, only partial knowledge.”
A. You first and second objections are assuming something that I did not say. Since the statement I posted from the Catechism and that I have been using throughout is that Adam and Even had full knowledge required for mortal sin, as described in the Catechism:

The full text of what I wrote it this:

Adam and Eve had “full knowledge”.
Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error.

Notice that I did not claim to quote or paraphrase you at this point. What I did do was come forth with a statement that renders your assertion untenable. And since you did not actually counter my point, but only repeated an assertion:

Am I to assume, at this point, that repeated assertions that do not address my points indicate you have no actual reasoned response?

Answer: Perhaps.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “If the second statement is false, that is, they did know that their sin would harm billions of people, we are again up against the idea that God created the world (including man) as “good”.” also “”
A. God did not create the world in perfection, so no conflict. Catechism:

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. …

Exactly, Vico. So nice to end on a good note! Yes, the universe, and man included, is in a state of journeying. Adam and Eve did not “spring forth complete”. Indeed, our earliest ancestors would have diminished “perfection”.

But what is the difference, what is it about us that actually is being “perfected”? What can be seen is this: humanity is growing in awareness. In fact, the source of our sin, the source of our error, is lack of awareness (Remember, everything you have brought forth, including “malice” is traced to lack of awareness/blindness). This is why people can so easily relate to the narrative of Adam and Eve when it is not burdened with such assertions as “they had complete dominion of reason”. They made an error that we can all relate to, until the assertion is added that they are in a more “perfect” state than normal human beings today, or any day.

Indeed, the idea that “Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite” conflicts directly with CCC 302. I know, you will say it is an exception.

We are “good”, Vico, our nature is definitely good! The Gospel lights our journey to a deeper awareness of Our Abba, and a deeper awareness of our own nature. One of the most important aspects of that awareness is the coming to a realization that what He created (humanity) is truly beautiful, that we can be so grateful for the gift of life and have a Father whose love and mercy has no limit.

Praise God!

 

[simpleas]

But what is the difference, what is it about us that actually is being “perfected”?

Our journey seems to be about becoming like the angels, but we don’t have much teaching on this, probably because it is very difficult for us to comprehend.

 

[OneSheep]

If you don’t mind my saying, if our journey is about “becoming” like angels, your example of love, acceptance, and charity is a beacon for such becoming.

 

[Vico]

…

That is an illogical conclusion that no learning could occur.

Full knowldege used in the Catechism relates to maintaining a state of charity (habitual grace). It is not necessary to have “the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error” to maintain habitual grace.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “what is it about us that actually is being “perfected”?”
A. Love. Catechism

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

You wrote: “the source of our sin, the source of our error, is lack of awareness”
A. No, it is not but a lack of charity. For example: a person can sin gravely even by theft (or serious deliberation to steal) an item thought to be valuable even though it is not know that it not valuable.

You wrote: “(Remember, everything you have brought forth, including “malice” is traced to lack of awareness/blindness).”
A. No, malice is a direct choice of evil, which can be either venial or mortal, in the case of the fall of Adam and Eve was mortal: they lost the state of sanctifying grace.

You wrote: “the idea that “Adam and Eve had dominion of reason over appetite” conflicts directly with CCC 302.”
A. No. The reason is that we have dominion of reason over appetite through the gift of sanctifying grace but it requires our will to manifest it in action.

You wrote: “our nature is definitely good!”
A. Yes. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in S.T. I-II 85: “the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue, which is befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational being; for it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason, which is to act virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely.” and " the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin."

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

Full knowldege used in the Catechism relates to maintaining a state of charity (habitual grace). It is not necessary to have “the knowledge they would have had from making the error of choice, from actually experiencing their error” to maintain habitual grace.

This is an issue that keeps coming up, the issue of grace. In my own relationship with the Father, I can see no period of time in my life, nor anyone else’ life, where a person has not received the grace of God in this sense: we are always graced with His love and mercy. Perhaps we can agree on this, perhaps not. Either way, I accept your position.

I think that what you are essentially saying is that a “state of charity” describes more of an on/off switch, where the choices to do good or evil are absolutely freely chosen one way or the other regardless of state of blindness or lack of awareness, that the actual content of awareness, such as the knowledge they would have from actually experiencing the error, is insignificant and has no effect on the “state of charity”.

I obviously disagree. The people who hung Jesus would have been in much more of a “state of charity” if they were not blinded by desire for justice. In addition, they would have been much more in a “state of charity” if they knew the beauty of His mission, His existence, His Love. He saw their state, that they were in a state of desire for justice (what they saw as justice), and He saw their blindness and ignorance. He forgave them, seeing that they did not know what they were doing. It is clear that what they did not know was a huge part of their decision to crucify, it was an enormous factor in their “state of charity”. Awareness is an important factor in all decision making, it is a limiting factor in our freedom, it is the developing factor in the word “full” when we talking about “full knowledge” vs “partial knowledge” and it is the guide for the will itself, it educates the will.

What I am reading is that you do not see a person’s awareness, wisdom, knowledge as having any import (except a very basic statement defining cooperation) concerning the “fullness” of knowledge, the depth of a person’s “state of charity”, and the Will itself. I gather that this is not only your experience of life, but it is also reflects your own cooperation with what you know of doctrine and dogma, etc.

By all means, Vico, remain with what you see as cooperation with dogma and doctrine. If you do not agree with what I see as the importance of awareness, in this case the knowledge that Adam and Eve would have from actually experiencing the poor choice, let it be. It’s okay with me, and I accept your point of view.

I know that you are going to feel compelled to “answer” this post, but I have no questions. Please feel free to put forth all the relevant doctrines to end this thread, because I think that is what you really want to do.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “what is it about us that actually is being “perfected”?”
A. Love.

1704 The human person… By his reason, he is capable of understanding… He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good.

Excellent point, Vico! Indeed, love is the state and demonstration of perfection. All I am saying is that awareness is the “seeking” part. When we “seek” we “find”, and in the finding we indeed have a greater state of awareness, which is an essential factor in “state of grace”, “fullness of knowledge” and “free will”.

You wrote: “the source of our sin, the source of our error, is lack of awareness”
A. No, it is not but a lack of charity.

Your statement is a little confusing, but in the case of theft the awareness of the value of what it being stolen is much less important than the harm it does to the person(s) being robbed. (note: I am not saying that we can disregard a small bit of harm) I see the objective of morality as avoidance of harm to people, that justice itself has the purpose of mercy. I gather that you are seeing “justice” as more of an end in itself. You are not seeing awareness as a key factor in lack of charity, right? Feel free to cite any relevant passages that demonstrate awareness, what we know, is not a key factor in a person’s ability to exercise charity.

You wrote: “(Remember, everything you have brought forth, including “malice” is traced to lack of awareness/blindness).”
A. No, malice is a direct choice of evil, …, in the case of the fall of Adam and Eve was mortal: they lost the state of sanctifying grace.

In summary, you are seeing that “malice” is not effected by awareness or blindness, that “choice of evil” does not have awareness as a central factor, as it was in the instance of the crowd hanging Jesus. I completely disagree, but I accept that you are seeing “malice” as unaffected by awareness or blindness, because the catechism does not explicitly say that malice (the choice to do evil) is influenced by the amount of wisdom, awareness, and blindness in the individual.

Indeed, what you are holding up as of key importance is that Adam and Eve are blamed, that the label “mortal” is always attached to their sin. Because such blame (seen to be shared by God) is probably an important factor in conscience formation, I see that the blame itself has its place in spiritual development.

(continued)

 

[Vico]

…

Per the Church, mortal sin does not depend upon knowledge other than that of the moral character of the (and serious), as posted earlier from the Catechism. Some cannot even sin mortally having never attained the use of reason. And we do have imperfect understanding. We rely upon the Church for definition.

• In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (De fide.) - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott). From Vatican Council:

“It must be ascribed to this Divine Revelation that those Divine things which are not inaccessible to the human understanding in itsel£ can also in the present condition of the human race be understood by all easily, with definite certainty, and without admixture of error.”

 

[OneSheep]

It is my prayer that people will move beyond blame, to see that God forgave Adam and Eve, and that we can all forgive Adam and Eve (from the heart). We can do this in exactly the same way Jesus did from the cross concerning the crowd, by seeing that the young couple did not know what they were doing. I can also see from your responses that the assertion of “dominion of reason” and/or “full knowledge” itself presents a roadblock to such manner of forgiveness, but I think that you are believing that the assertion takes precedent over any seeking to understand the state of awareness in Adam and Eve, that what is most important is to remain blaming them for what they did.

I know, you may bring up that saying a sin is “mortal” is not about blaming. In my observation, when we say this, it is a matter of denial, but feel free to bring forth any doctrine or dogma saying that finding another’s sin “mortal” is not about blaming. I will leave it uncontested and respect your difference of opinion.

When you are ready, Vico, I invite you to understand that any “malice”, “will to manifest grace” and “free will” itself are greatly effected by awareness. I understand that any admission that the couple did not have “full knowledge” means facing a much-feared chain of events: i.e. that God did not punish mankind, that God did not hold a debt against us, that Jesus did not come to pay for Adam and Eve’s (and everyone elses’) sin, etc.

The fear is unfounded. Understanding and forgiveness is the path of the Journey, the path shown to us by Jesus Christ. “Seek, and you shall find” is the most common saying of Jesus, and He encouraged followers to forgive everyone they held anything against.

Feel free to end this thread with more responses asserting all the reasons to continue to uphold God’s blame of Adam and Eve, his wrath and indignation, or whatever you deem appropriate. I respect your POV because of your complete dedication to what you see as the important concepts in doctrine, and I respect your own journey and image of God.

 

[Vico]

…

The doctrine of Original sin is not about forgiveness but about the loss of original justice.:

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, 263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[Vico]

…

Catechism

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

59 Gaudium et Spes 16.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html