Did people really live hundreds of years?

[randomusername]

Please read post 177 carefully. In addition, please take a look at the “Index of Citations” beginning with Genesis 1: 1, page 689, the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *If there is some available time, then please study CCC 20-21 which is part of the section “Practical Directions for Using This Catechism”.

Links to Catholic teachings, the universal Catechism

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I will be delighted to answer questions about the above instructions.

After the meanings (plural intended) of the above instructions are found, I will attempt a reasonable, common sense answer to this question. “So why should we take some parts of Genesis literally and not others?”

Post 177 has nothing to do with this at all. I am not putting science above Divine Revelation.

 

[FrDavid96]

If the ages aren’t literal, they mean absolutely nothing.

That’s simply not true. The parable of the prodigal son is not literal history, but it surely does not mean “absolutely nothing.”

Genesis may not be full of details, but God did literally make the world.

No one is disputing this, so why even bring it up?
There is no conflict between saying both God made the world and the book of Genesis is not an account of literal history.

The Church says that Adam and Eve did literally exist. So why should we take some parts of Genesis literally and not others?

That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain. It’s what the Church explains. The teaching has been posted here repeatedly. One must actually read the teaching.

You just keep saying the whole meaning is lost but you never give me any proper things that the ages could mean if they were metaphorical.

You keep repeating that. It’s simply not true. I have posted the explanation. See post #7 as well as the other posts I’ve made here. There’s a difference between “I haven’t given a meaning” and “you won’t read what I wrote.”

And why should we take some parts of Genesis literally, like God creating the earth, and not others?

Again, I’ve posted that several times. One more time: the reason is that we have to evaluate biblical texts according to their intended meaning, and according to the context and the literary genre of each individual text. See especially the Introduction to the Book of Genesis from the New American Bible. I (and others) have posted it several times.

Denying that it’s been posted won’t make the posts go away. They’re right here for anyone to read.

The Church says that Genesis is not purified myth

.

True. But that’s just one sentence taken out of context. To say that it’s not purified myth means that it was not just a story borrowed from another culture that was somehow adapted by the ancient people of Abraham. The phrase “not purified myth” does not equate to “it is literal history.”

So Genesis is how it happened but it’s just not in great detail because it doesn’t need to be. So why, if we take God creating the earth literally, should we say that the ages are metaphorical?

Precisely because they are metaphorical. They were always intended to be exactly that. It’s like asking “why say that an oak tree is an oak tree?”
Again, you’re trying to equate things that are not comparable. “God created the earth” does not mean “Genesis is literal history.”

And if, like some people said, years were a lot shorter than due to different timelines, Moses’ contemporaries dying in their 70s and 80s would have died exceptionally young.

“like some people said” doesn’t make what they said to be true. They’re speaking nonsense. 70s or 80s at the time of the Exodus (or any time period, for that matter) was not young at all, on the contrary it was very old. Very old indeed. A person living to be 70 was a remarkable exception; the very opposite of “exceptionally young.”

Alright so mutation happens when DNA isn’t copied correctly. Hundreds of new mutations are brought in every generation. So if we go back to say, Jesus’ time, even then there was a lot

less mutations.

That’s another example of pseudo-science (junk science) to try to prove a misunderstanding of Scripture. Neither scientists nor theologians take such things seriously. And that’s why I don’t respond to such nonsense when it’s posted.

And if we go back earlier to Moses’ time, there was way less again(and while Moses lived a long time to 120, his contemporaries lived to their 70s and 80s). So just after the fall of man, there would have been extremely few mutations compared to now. Also they would have had more genetic variety since they were the first humans and there hadn’t been any genetic bottlenecks yet.

More of the same. Such theories have no credibility, none whatsoever, among theologians or scientists. Only quacks who pretend to be either advocate such ideas.

But the Fall was different to human mutations. The Fall of Man gave us original sin and made us inclined to sin. That’s different from mutations and is in no way incompatible with it. Mutations existing doesn’t mean that the Fall is gradual as they are separate things.

The Fall has nothing to do with genetic mutations. Not in the sense that has any relevance to the topic at hand. Yes, if the Fall never happened, we would still have “perfect” bodies—but that’s not the topic at hand.

I can only explain it if you’re going to actually read what I wrote. Repeatedly denying that I posted an explanation isn’t getting us anywhere. If you would like more details, by all means I will try to do it. But I’m not going to post it if I know ahead of time that you aren’t going to read it anyway, but will just keep saying “you never answered…”

 

[grannymh]

Post 177 has nothing to do with this at all. I am not putting science above Divine Revelation.

May I gently point out that Post 177 ignored the issue of science as to whether or not science is above or below Divine Revelation.

This is the reference to science:
“And then, we consider if science is conducted properly.”
Conducting science properly is actually a key issue before any research paper is published in a peer-review journal.

It should be obvious that when we are talking about the Catholic Faith, we should do our best to learn the beliefs of the Catholic Faith. The beliefs of the Catholic faith are expressed in Catholic doctrines. The composite of total beliefs is known as the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

From post 177.
“The solution to the real problem is to start with Catholic doctrines. It is important that Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is properly understood.”

What could possibly be wrong with learning Catholic teachings in order to understand Divine Revelation which flows from Scripture? Divine Revelation trumps. Why should it be ignored?

Those readers, including guests, who are interested in Scripture sources for Catholic teachings should re-read post 177. Please notice that the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, Index of Citations, includes sources in addition to Scripture. That is part of the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth when it comes to defining Catholic doctrines. Also, please take into consideration the difference between regular print and small print, CCC 20-21.

In my humble opinion, CCC 20-21 will help people in their approach to Genesis, chapter 5. I prefer that someone else checks those paragraphs because my Catholic education was many moons before Google. Back then, I learned some, not all, of the nitty-gritty history which followed the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verses 15-31. Thus, I am interested in how today’s Catholics view the early history of Catholicism, which is important when dealing with the early chapters of Genesis.

 

[randomusername]

That’s simply not true. The parable of the prodigal son is not literal history, but it surely does not mean “absolutely nothing.”

Comparing a parable with a clear, good meaning to you saying that the writers of the Bible were lying about their age to make them appear more righteous is just silly.

No one is disputing this, so why even bring it up?
There is no conflict between saying both God made the world and the book of Genesis is not an account of literal history.

That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain. It’s what the Church explains. The teaching has been posted here repeatedly. One must actually read the teaching.

You keep repeating that. It’s simply not true. I have posted the explanation. See post #7 as well as the other posts I’ve made here. There’s a difference between “I haven’t given a meaning” and “you won’t read what I wrote.”

Again, I’ve posted that several times. One more time: the reason is that we have to evaluate biblical texts according to their intended meaning, and according to the context and the literary genre of each individual text. See especially the Introduction to the Book of Genesis from the New American Bible. I (and others) have posted it several times.

Denying that it’s been posted won’t make the posts go away. They’re right here for anyone to read.

True. But that’s just one sentence taken out of context. To say that it’s not purified myth means that it was not just a story borrowed from another culture that was somehow adapted by the ancient people of Abraham. The phrase “not purified myth” does not equate to “it is literal history.”

Precisely because they are metaphorical. They were always intended to be exactly that. It’s like asking “why say that an oak tree is an oak tree?”
Again, you’re trying to equate things that are not comparable. “God created the earth” does not mean “Genesis is literal history.”

“like some people said” doesn’t make what they said to be true. They’re speaking nonsense. 70s or 80s at the time of the Exodus (or any time period, for that matter) was not young at all, on the contrary it was very old. Very old indeed. A person living to be 70 was a remarkable exception; the very opposite of “exceptionally young.”

I was referring to the man that said that years were measured in moons who said that 900 years would only be 75 years now, making 80 year olds then less than 7 now.

That’s another example of pseudo-science (junk science) to try to prove a misunderstanding of Scripture. Neither scientists nor theologians take such things seriously. And that’s why I don’t respond to such nonsense when it’s posted.

Not pseudo-science.

More of the same. Such theories have no credibility, none whatsoever, among theologians or scientists. Only quacks who pretend to be either advocate such ideas.

The fact that there were way less mutations has tons of credibility. What doesn’t is that it would affect age.

The Fall has nothing to do with genetic mutations. Not in the sense that has any relevance to the topic at hand. Yes, if the Fall never happened, we would still have “perfect” bodies—but that’s not the topic at hand.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. I was replying to someone who said that me saying gradual mutations means I believe a gradual Fall. But I don’t. I said that they had nothing to do with each other, that was my whole bloody point.

I can only explain it if you’re going to actually read what I wrote. Repeatedly denying that I posted an explanation isn’t getting us anywhere. If you would like more details, by all means I will try to do it. But I’m not going to post it if I know ahead of time that you aren’t going to read it anyway, but will just keep saying “you never answered…”

I really, really love how you took so much of my post out of context and tried to contort some of it to mean the opposite of what it said. Similar to what you are trying to do with the ages mentioned throughout Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

The Fall has nothing to do with genetic mutations. Not in the sense that has any relevance to the topic at hand. Yes, if the Fall never happened, we would still have “perfect” bodies—but that’s not the topic at hand.

How do we know that God did not withdraw the protection against mutations and corruption when Adam and Eve sinned?

 

[Zipply]

How do we know that God did not withdraw the protection against mutations and corruption when Adam and Eve sinned?

Because there were mutations before. And there were mutations after. I’m getting distinct impression that Buffalo does not understand the import of any of the weird stuff in his signature.

 

[FrDavid96]

I really, really love how you took so much of my post out of context and tried to contort some of it to mean the opposite of what it said. Similar to what you are trying to do with the ages mentioned throughout Genesis.

I can try to explain it. I have tried. See post #7 for a start. But if you’re going to continue posting what you have been, then I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it further.

If someone wants a reasoned, adult-level discussion then I’m happy to participate.

 

[randomusername]

I can try to explain it. I have tried. See post #7 for a start. But if you’re going to continue posting what you have been, then I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it further.

If someone wants a reasoned, adult-level discussion then I’m happy to participate.

I read post 7. You said that they lied about the ages to make them look better. Which still doesn’t explain why Moses’ contemporaries, who weren’t even named so didn’t need honouring, lived to their 70s and 80s which was exceptional for the time.

Then you mentioned some code stuff:
“Also, numbers in the Bible often have certain meaning. At first, they did not have true numerals like we do today. They wrote using letters. Somewhat like a code: a=1, b=2, etc. Occasionally, they used these numbers to spell words. Think of a telephone number that spells out a word.”

So instead of just saying their age, they made a hidden unbreakable code for their age? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And comparing the ages being wrong to the Prodigal Son not being real history makes little sense. The Prodigal Son teaches us a lesson, saying some is 900 years old does not.

It’s simply impossible to understand the early part of the Book of Genesis if one attempts to force a literal interpretation.

And here we’re at it, saying not to take Genesis literally. But if you don’t take Genesis literally, then you don’t get the single most important part of the faith from it. God created the earth. If you choose to take some parts literally and not others, then it is you, not I, who is cherrypicking and twisting the writing.

 

[clem456]

I read post 7. You said that they lied about the ages to make them look better. Which still doesn’t explain why Moses’ contemporaries, who weren’t even named so didn’t need honouring, lived to their 70s and 80s which was exceptional for the time.

Then you mentioned some code stuff:
“Also, numbers in the Bible often have certain meaning. At first, they did not have true numerals like we do today. They wrote using letters. Somewhat like a code: a=1, b=2, etc. Occasionally, they used these numbers to spell words. Think of a telephone number that spells out a word.”

So instead of just saying their age, they made a hidden unbreakable code for their age? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And comparing the ages being wrong to the Prodigal Son not being real history makes little sense. The Prodigal Son teaches us a lesson, saying some is 900 years old does not.

And here we’re at it, saying not to take Genesis literally. But if you don’t take Genesis literally, then you don’t get the single most important part of the faith from it. God created the earth. If you choose to take some parts literally and not others, then it is you, not I, who is cherrypicking and twisting the writing.

1. You are accusing the poster of saying something he did not remotely say. He never claimed there was a lie in scripture.
2. he doesn’t claim the “900 year” ages mean nothing, and he is not claiming they are “wrong”. Quite the contrary, he is saying there is a full meaning which many people just refuse to hear.
3. you don’t understand the difference between the terms “literal”, and “literalist” Take a scripture class please.

 

[randomusername]

1. You are accusing the poster of saying something he did not remotely say. He never claimed there was a lie in scripture.
2. he doesn’t claim the “900 year” ages mean nothing, and he is not claiming they are “wrong”. Quite the contrary, he is saying there is a full meaning which many people just refuse to hear.
3. you don’t understand the difference between the terms “literal”, and “literalist” Take a scripture class please.

1. Saying someone lived to 900 when they did not is a lie.
2. No. I meant it means nothing as a parable. Sorry for being unclear.

 

[buffalo]

Because there were mutations before. And there were mutations after. I’m getting distinct impression that Buffalo does not understand the import of any of the weird stuff in his signature.

Is your claim God designed Adam and Eve with mutations?

 

[randomusername]

Because there were mutations before. And there were mutations after. I’m getting distinct impression that Buffalo does not understand the import of any of the weird stuff in his signature.

Since Adam and Eve were designed perfect and were the first humans, it is impossible that they had mutations, pre-Fall at least.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if anyone will dare step out of their mutant world and look at the other proposals on the table. On the other hand, maybe these have already been accepted. I like the idea of “acceptance.”

Thank you, kind posters.

 

[Zipply]

Is your claim God designed Adam and Eve with mutations?

Since Adam and Eve were designed perfect and were the first humans, it is impossible that they had mutations, pre-Fall at least.

You guys don’t get it, like, at all.

The Church is not six-day creationist. None of the modern popes has taught this, and in point of fact, as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the modern popes have taught the acceptability of human evolution.

Evolution is caused by mutation, to put it simply. If there were no mutations, then no evolution. If you think all evolution is caused directly by the will of God (a very silly position, but I bet we’d all get banned for trying to discuss it) then it’s still changes to the genome (mutations) that He is working with.

So, there were mutations in every generation before Adam…and mutations in every generation after Adam. That means there are subtle changes to the genome generation to generation.

So, unless you are a six-day creationist, you believe in mutation in the human evolutionary lineage both before and after the Fall. Ergo, the Fall did not cause genetic mutation to begin.

If you are a six-day creationist, what do you care? There is no way to reason anything concerning literal six-day creation, everything is literally miraculous, so all these efforts to co-opt genetic mutation to create a scientific-sounding explanation for the effects of the Fall are just worthless. If everything is simply miraculous, why try to explain it via genetics?

 

[Zipply]

) Saying someone lived to 900 when they did not is a lie.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you are under 30. In fact, I’ll bet you’re closer to 20. That’s 20 year old reasoning.

If you like to reason like that, then go here: Bible Contradictions. you can go argue with people who read the bible as badly as you do.

 

[buffalo]

You guys don’t get it, like, at all.

The Church is not six-day creationist. None of the modern popes has taught this, and in point of fact, as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the modern popes have taught the acceptability of human evolution.

Evolution is caused by mutation, to put it simply. If there were no mutations, then no evolution. If you think all evolution is caused directly by the will of God (a very silly position, but I bet we’d all get banned for trying to discuss it) then it’s still changes to the genome (mutations) that He is working with.

So, there were mutations in every generation before Adam…and mutations in every generation after Adam. That means there are subtle changes to the genome generation to generation.

So, unless you are a six-day creationist, you believe in mutation in the human evolutionary lineage both before and after the Fall. Ergo, the Fall did not cause genetic mutation to begin.

If you are a six-day creationist, what do you care? There is no way to reason anything concerning literal six-day creation, everything is literally miraculous, so all these efforts to co-opt genetic mutation to create a scientific-sounding explanation for the effects of the Fall are just worthless. If everything is simply miraculous, why try to explain it via genetics?

Explain Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom of sickness.

 

[randomusername]

You guys don’t get it, like, at all.

The Church is not six-day creationist. None of the modern popes has taught this, and in point of fact, as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the modern popes have taught the acceptability of human evolution.

Evolution is caused by mutation, to put it simply. If there were no mutations, then no evolution. If you think all evolution is caused directly by the will of God (a very silly position, but I bet we’d all get banned for trying to discuss it) then it’s still changes to the genome (mutations) that He is working with.

So, there were mutations in every generation before Adam…and mutations in every generation after Adam. That means there are subtle changes to the genome generation to generation.

So, unless you are a six-day creationist, you believe in mutation in the human evolutionary lineage both before and after the Fall. Ergo, the Fall did not cause genetic mutation to begin.

If you are a six-day creationist, what do you care? There is no way to reason anything concerning literal six-day creation, everything is literally miraculous, so all these efforts to co-opt genetic mutation to create a scientific-sounding explanation for the effects of the Fall are just worthless. If everything is simply miraculous, why try to explain it via genetics?

“The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.”

“Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).”

“Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)”

That’s Church teaching right there mate.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you are under 30. In fact, I’ll bet you’re closer to 20. That’s 20 year old reasoning.

If you like to reason like that, then go here: Bible Contradictions. you can go argue with people who read the bible as badly as you do.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

At best it’s misleading. You don’t need to say someone lived to an age they didn’t just to make them sound holier. And the whole “it means they were righteous” theory doesn’t stand up to them saying that they begat their children at certain ridiculously large ages.

It takes a huge stretch to make the text mean that they wanted to make them sound holier by saying those ages. Also it makes Moses, bearer of the Commandments sound far less holy than those who lived to their 900s pre-Flood.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Take a trip to the Grand Canyon.

I did, back in 2010. I still look at my pictures in awe .

God is Great!!!

 

[Zipply]

Teachings of the Church

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

So, I don’t know where you got a copy of that list, but I know where I got mine, in the Fr Warkulwiz book published by the Kolbe center.

Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

Rather, what the PBC said in 1909 that would be germane to this discussion is:

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? – Reply: In the affirmative.

The PBC affirms that Catholics can disagree on the matter. Therefore, we may survey human knowledge on the topic.

We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).

The actual teaching is:

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus §19)

…which is why Popes JPII and Benedict could teach evolution (as they did) without running afoul of Church teaching (which the Kolbe center has never explained).

Here is a real list of dogmas concerning creation:

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974),

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

 

[Zipply]

Randomusername posted:

“The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.”

See above. Not dogma. Actually the Leo XIII reference is not from any teaching on scripture or science…it’s from his encyclical on marriage. Nice sleight of hand, eh?

“Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).”

Not dogma. You need to cite this, since this is the same Pope who allowed investigation into human evolution as not being contradictory to the faith.

“Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)”

If you see anyone disputing this, let me know.

That’s Church teaching right there mate.

No. That was your quote from the list posted by Buffalo which was written by a certain crackpot priest named Warkulwiz and published by a crackpot 6-day creationist group in California. An actual list of Dogmas concerning creation appears in Ott:

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)