Doctrine on Adam and Eve?

[Benadam]

Oh so that part of Genesis wasn’t literal, but the rest is?
Please, your position is self refuting.

You are confused about truth expressed in mythic literature. Genesis uses symbolic language to describe literal events. The events are imbued with deep spiritual meaning. If I tell you that it rained cats and dogs you know I am describing a literal event with symbolic language. The rain is literal the cats and dogs is a metaphore.

Your statements about how Genesis should e enterpreted is black and white, all or nothing, so you say it must literal or symbolic nothing in between. What lies inbetween is often the way we speak. Most often the faulty conception is in thinking that the two extremes are mutually exclusive, like you are thinking, but in fact work together hand in hand. Like science and religion.

. example of a statement using symbolic language to describe a literal event.

" My uncle put the Church in his back pocket and went on with his life."

This sentence uses symbolic language to describe my uncles relationship with the faith. Most people would know exactly what it means and probably a bit more deeply because of the symbolic language.

Why can’t you accept the possibility that Genesis is properly understood in this way?

 

[Dan_Daly]

1. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.) ??? Limbo was excluded already

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but I’m curious what you mean by “Limbo was excluded already”.

If you mean the Church says Limbo doesn’t exist, you are mistaken.

The document that produced the “Church changes its mind about Limbo” media frenzy aways back:

1. Was not official Church Teaching.
2. Did not say Limbo didn’t exist.

Basically, in my opinion, it uses a whole bunch of words to say a whole lot of nothing. Here’s the document for anyone wishing to read it:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Pax and God Bless.

 

[minkymurph]

Faith1960,

The doctrine on Adam & Eve has to and will change given the scientific evidence against monogenism.

Catholic theologians are currently looking into ways of reconciling Original Sin with polygenism - Cardinal Ratzinger himself proposed a relational model of OS which makes a lot of sense and is perfectly compatible with polygenism

I thought of Aquinas when I was posting on another thread. In the thirteenth century, Aristotle’s philosophy was considered pagan heresy, and Catholic theologians were forbidden to study it. Aquinas’ ideas were initially thought heretical and when he gave one of his early lectures in Paris University, he was guarded by archers because it was feared someone would try to kill him. Things changed.

Today, theologians who accept reconcile Original Sin and polygenism are sometimes labelled, ‘modernists,’ and ‘liberals.’ It is sometimes suggested their purpose in attempting to reconcile Original Sin and polygenism is to appease modern thinking and make Catholicism more attractive. What do we learn from Aquinas? Aquinas revived Aristotle’s philosophy, and re-interpreted it in a Christian context making it compatible with Catholic teaching.and the Council of Trent defined the Sacraments in accordance with a lot of Aquinas’ philosophy. While a lot of his philosophy would not be accepted today, because we know more now than we did in the thirteenth century, Catholics continue to study Aquinas because a lot of our understanding of Catholic sacraments comes from Aquinas. He is revered as a theologian and is a Saint.

There were others in the thirteenth century, such as Meister Eckhart whose theology was considered heretical yet gained acceptance. Therefore, seven centuries from now, will theology that is presently considered, ‘liberal,’ ‘modernist,’ and contrary to Church teaching still be though of as such, or will it gain acceptance? Time will tell. In the meantime, we’ll probably continue debating it on the internet. Interestingly, at the end of Aquinas’ life he said his work was ‘all straw.’

I think the doctrine on Adam and Eve will change as well.

 

[minkymurph]

Can anyone tell me if Catholics were required to believe the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century? Or if the Church taught or believed the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century?

 

[grannymh]

I thought of Aquinas when I was posting on another thread. In the thirteenth century, Aristotle’s philosophy was considered pagan heresy, and Catholic theologians were forbidden to study it. Aquinas’ ideas were initially thought heretical and when he gave one of his early lectures in Paris University, he was guarded by archers because it was feared someone would try to kill him. Things changed.

Today, theologians who accept reconcile Original Sin and polygenism are sometimes labelled, ‘modernists,’ and ‘liberals.’ It is sometimes suggested their purpose in attempting to reconcile Original Sin and polygenism is to appease modern thinking and make Catholicism more attractive. What do we learn from Aquinas? Aquinas revived Aristotle’s philosophy, and re-interpreted it in a Christian context making it compatible with Catholic teaching.and the Council of Trent defined the Sacraments in accordance with a lot of Aquinas’ philosophy. While a lot of his philosophy would not be accepted today, because we know more now than we did in the thirteenth century, Catholics continue to study Aquinas because a lot of our understanding of Catholic sacraments comes from Aquinas. He is revered as a theologian and is a Saint.

There were others in the thirteenth century, such as Meister Eckhart whose theology was considered heretical yet gained acceptance. Therefore, seven centuries from now, will theology that is presently considered, ‘liberal,’ ‘modernist,’ and contrary to Church teaching still be though of as such, or will it gain acceptance? Time will tell. In the meantime, we’ll probably continue debating it on the internet. Interestingly, at the end of Aquinas’ life he said his work was ‘all straw.’

I think the doctrine on Adam and Eve will change as well.

Theology is the study of doctrines. The study can change.

Catholic Doctrines officially defined and declared under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14) cannot be contradicted. They can be further explained but not changed in substance. Going from the existence of Adam to the non-existence of Adam is a direct contradiction and therefore impossible within the Catholic Church.

Obviously any person, theologian or not, can contradict anything they so wish. These contradictions do not have the power to change Divine Revelation.

 

[razredge]

Can anyone tell me if Catholics were required to believe the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century? Or if the Church taught or believed the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century?

Yes, most definitely - if you remember the Galileo Affair - heliocentrism was formally declared as a heresy.

 

[minkymurph]

Theology is the study of doctrines. The study can change.

Catholic Doctrines officially defined and declared under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14) cannot be contradicted. They can be further explained but not changed in substance. Going from the existence of Adam to the non-existence of Adam is a direct contradiction and therefore impossible within the Catholic Church.

Obviously any person, theologian or not, can contradict anything they so wish. These contradictions do not have the power to change Divine Revelation.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else but I wasn’t suggesting a move to Adam didn’t exist at all. Obviously, a first man/woman or group of men/women existed because humans exist. It’s quite possible the first human male, (or for the sake of argument one of a group of males who may have been head of the group) was called Adam, and he had a wife called Eve.

We don’t how Original Sin is transmitted. In fact, we don’t know what the Original Sin actually was other than it was an act of disobedience. If the entire human race is generated from one human pair, Adam and Eve, this does not in itself explain how we ‘inherit’ original sin. To explain, is it passed on through genes? We don’t know. Do we ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve? We don’t know. If we don’t ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve and God bestows a soul on us, how come it has the stain of sin? ‘Because our first parents sinned’ isn’t really an adequate answer. Therefore, while we cannot change our belief that we inherit sin, our understanding of the physical mechanisms by which we inherit sin can change because we don’t actually know how it happens.

I would dispute whether the concept of mongenism can be termed Divine Revelation, or if it is a belief that was revealed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Monogenism is a belief, yes. I read of it being declared it infallible doctrine by any of the Councils. If monogenism is so crucial to the Catholic faith, you’d imagine it would have been. Other things were.

 

[razredge]

You are confused about truth expressed in mythic literature.

If anyone’s confused you are- after all you’re the one who is a deciding on completely arbitrary basis what parts of Genesis are actual history and what is just myth/legend.

Genesis uses symbolic language to describe literal events. The events are imbued with deep spiritual meaning.

Yes, I agree - the writer is using the symbolic language of a man called ‘Man’ and a woman called ‘Life’ to describe the creation of humanity by God and their fall away from him into sin.

Why can’t you accept the possibility that Genesis is properly understood in this way?

I can and that’s what I’m doing (and all the other Catholics on here who don’t believe in a historical Adam & Eve) - if anything you and the YEC are the ones who are holding to a literal reading of Genesis (except where it suits you to do otherwise)

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, most definitely - if you remember the Galileo Affair - heliocentrism was formally declared as a heresy.

Yes, I do have some recollection of people becoming a little upset about Galileo’s scientific discovery.

Of course it could be argued that heliocentrism is not part of Divine Revelation. However, I wonder if that’s something that’s said in hindsight and people at the time thought it was?

 

[razredge]

We don’t how Original Sin is transmitted. In fact, we don’t know what the Original Sin actually was other than it was an act of disobedience. If the entire human race is generated from one human pair, Adam and Eve, this does not in itself explain how we ‘inherit’ original sin. To explain, is it passed on through genes? We don’t know. Do we ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve? We don’t know. If we don’t ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve and God bestows a soul on us, how come it has the stain of sin? ‘Because our first parents sinned’ isn’t really an adequate answer. Therefore, while we cannot change our belief that we inherit sin, our understanding of the physical mechanisms by which we inherit sin can change because we don’t actually know how it happens.

The then Cardinal Ratzinger proposed a model of original sin that both makes sense and is completely reconcilable with polygenism -

"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean?
Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?

 "Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without--from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are 'present.' Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives--themselves--only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for.

But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it."

novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (Novus Ordo Watch aren’t big fans )

I would dispute whether the concept of mongenism can be termed Divine Revelation, or if it is a belief that was revealed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Of course it’s not Divine Revelation, since authentic divine revelation would not contradict the evidence (unless God were a deceiver or some kind of divine prankster)
Just as Granny where the Church gets its belief in monogenism from, it’ll be something quite akin to chinese whispers.

 

[razredge]

Of course it could be argued that heliocentrism is not part of Divine Revelation. However, I wonder if that’s something that’s said in hindsight and people at the time thought it was?

Exactly - you will notice that infallible teachings are almost always defined after the fact so any teaching which hasn’t changed over the centuries is ‘infallible’ while any teaching that has isn’t.

And the Church at Galileo’s time definitively thought, heliocentrism was based on Divine Revelation hence their condemnation of Galileo.

They also burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake because he refused to recant his belief in a multitude of worlds.

 

[minkymurph]

Of course it’s not Divine Revelation, since authentic divine revelation would not contradict the evidence (unless God were a deceiver or some kind of divine prankster)
Just as Granny where the Church gets its belief in monogenism from, it’ll be something quite akin to chinese whispers.

Is still say the basis of belief in monogenism is based on a literal reading of scripture. I’m not convinced by arguments to the contrary. Where else does the belief we came from two sole parents called Adam and Eve come from other than scripture?

 

[grannymh]

Can anyone tell me if Catholics were required to believe the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century? Or if the Church taught or believed the sun revolved around the earth prior to the sixteenth century?

There was no declared Catholic Doctrine which required belief in the sun revolving around the earth in any century. Nor is there a Catholic doctrine requiring belief in the earth revolving around the sun.
Knowledge pertaining to the movements of the material/physical planet known as earth is not required for entrance into heaven.

 

[Benadam]

If anyone’s confused you are- after all you’re the one who is a deciding on completely arbitrary basis what parts of Genesis are actual history and what is just myth/legend.

 

[buffalo]

TRADITION is not that Adam and Eve were real.

Pope Pelagius I : I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… ).**15

Ecumenical Council of Vienne in 1312 - [We confess] … that after [Jesus’] spirit was already rendered up, his side suffered perforation by a lance, so that through the ensuing flow of water and blood, the one and only, immaculate, virgin holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, might be formed, just as from the side of the first man, cast into sleep, Eve was formed for him unto marriage. This happened so that the reality manifested in our last Adam, that is, Christ, might correspond to a certain prefiguring of that reality constituted by the first and ancient Adam, who, according to the Apostle, “is a type of the one who was to come” [cf. Rom. 5: 14].18

Bible dictionary by Fr. B. O’Reilly, first published in the 1850s - EVE, the first woman, made out of a rib of Adam (Gen. ii. 21); induced by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit (iii. 6); persuades Adam to eat thereof (6); her sentence (16); God makes her a garment of skins (21); mother of Cain (iv. 1); of Abel (2); of Seth (25) and of daughters (v. 4).21

draft schema prepared by bishops and theologians of Vatican Council I for the proposed Constitution *De doctrina catholica - *This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: When God was about to make man according to his image and likeness in order that he might rule over the whole earth, He breathed into the body formed from the slime of the earth the breath of life, that is, a soul produced from nothing… . And blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1: 28).23

Pope Leo - What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in his supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity.27

**Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909 - Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).**30

**

 

[minkymurph]

There was no declared Catholic Doctrine which required belief in the sun revolving around the earth in any century. Nor is there a Catholic doctrine requiring belief in the earth revolving around the sun.
Knowledge pertaining to the movements of the material/physical planet known as earth is not required for entrance into heaven.

There may not have been any declared doctrine.

However, would you say that razredge is wrong - that heliocentrism was not declared heresy? That the Church did not believe and teach that the sun revolved around the earth?
That the Church did not require Catholics to believe this?
That Catholics at the time of the Galileo controversy were free to believe what they chose because the Church did not have a position on the movements of the earth and the sun?

Would you say that belief in monogenism is required for entrance to heaven?

 

[grannymh]

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else but I wasn’t suggesting a move to Adam didn’t exist at all. Obviously, a first man/woman or group of men/women existed because humans exist. It’s quite possible the first human male, (or for the sake of argument one of a group of males who may have been head of the group) was called Adam, and he had a wife called Eve.

We don’t how Original Sin is transmitted. In fact, we don’t know what the Original Sin actually was other than it was an act of disobedience. If the entire human race is generated from one human pair, Adam and Eve, this does not in itself explain how we ‘inherit’ original sin. To explain, is it passed on through genes? We don’t know. Do we ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve? We don’t know. If we don’t ‘inherit’ a soul from Adam and Eve and God bestows a soul on us, how come it has the stain of sin? ‘Because our first parents sinned’ isn’t really an adequate answer. Therefore, while we cannot change our belief that we inherit sin, our understanding of the physical mechanisms by which we inherit sin can change because we don’t actually know how it happens.

I would dispute whether the concept of mongenism can be termed Divine Revelation, or if it is a belief that was revealed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Monogenism is a belief, yes. I read of it being declared it infallible doctrine by any of the Councils. If monogenism is so crucial to the Catholic faith, you’d imagine it would have been. Other things were.

All those “we don’t knows” are explained in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

The then Cardinal Ratzinger proposed a model of original sin that both makes sense and is completely reconcilable with polygenism -

novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm (Novus Ordo Watch aren’t big fans )

"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins.
Emphasis mine.

This quote from Post 50 sure doesn’t sound like polygenism. Notice that the particular person Adam who stands at the origin of humankind.

 

[minkymurph]

All those “we don’t knows” are explained in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-421.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Nice try. They’re not.

 

[Wardog]

There are two Adam & Eve stories in Genesis. Which one is the correct one?