Doctrine on Adam and Eve?

[minkymurph]

I never mentioned how Catholic doctrine was arrived at-simply that Catholic doctrine exists-it’s very easy to find in the Catechism, for example-and this gives us the content of Catholic faith.

I know you didn’t. I chose to mention it because I thought it was significant.

I know Catholic doctrine exists, I know it can be found in the Catechism and if one more person tells me to read it I think I’ll scream.:banghead:

It may be more helpful if Catholics could agree on what it says. I’ve often asked myself if the Catechism is so clear cut why do people argue about what it says, and claim those whose understanding of what is stated in the Catechism is not there’s are not reading it properly.

I’m not getting at you personally, I’m just venting.

 

[razredge]

Some of us also know the difference between Catholic doctrine and out-of-context quotes which are then misinterpreted on CAF.

If you claim the quotes are taken out of context - then the burden of proof is on you to show that they were - certainly Novus Ordo Watch doesn’t seem to think so

Most of us know that it is nearly impossible to change the worldview of CAF posters.

Tu quoque - except I have the scientific evidence backing my case and it would seem the theologians and apologists too (like St Anastasia, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins etc.)

With that, I rest my case for the Catholic doctrine of two, real, sole parents of the human species

Pfft, what case? you have merely said ‘Church & Catechism’ say so, so it must be true!’

I don’t think monogenism is essential in order to explain original sin. However, it’s fair to say it should not be assumed

it is unnecessary. It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who hold this opinion to present valid theological arguments in addition to scientific one’s that are rational, reasonable and in the case of Catholics, compatible with Church teachings

That’s my point, I was saying that you don’t need monogenism to explain original sin - not that original sin cannot be explained by monogenism etc.

It would also have effects outside the Church because whether anyone likes it or not and irrespective of why, when the Pope says something the world takes notice. To explain, I have said on the forums I was brought a JW. If a prominent figure in the JW world stated JW’s need no longer believe in monogenism, no one would notice much or even care.

 

[grannymh]

Tu quoque - except I have the scientific evidence backing my case and it would seem the theologians and apologists too (like St Anastasia, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akins etc.)

In my humble opinion,* real* Catholic teaching available to all is better than rumors.
It is everyone’s privilege to choose whatever kind of mortal human they wish to follow. In my humble opinion, it makes more sense to follow the real Catholicism of Jesus Christ since that deals with eternal life. Naturally, it is everyone’s privilege to attack Catholicism with any kind of “evidence” .

 

[razredge]

In my humble opinion,* real* Catholic teaching available to all is better than rumors.
.

What do you mean by rumours? Rumours that these apologists & theologians accept polygenism? No, I have linked to articles by them before as you well know.

And i’m sure you’re familiar with the International Theological Commission’s document ‘Communion & Stewardship’ ratified by Ratzinger himself which also accepts polygenism

It is everyone’s privilege to choose whatever kind of mortal human they wish to follow. In my humble opinion, it makes more sense to follow the real Catholicism of Jesus Christ since that deals with eternal life. Naturally, it is everyone’s privilege to attack Catholicism with any kind of “evidence”

Pray tell , how the ‘real Catholicism of Jesus Christ that deals with eternal life’ has anything to do with polygenism.

 

[grannymh]

And i’m sure you’re familiar with the International Theological Commission’s document ‘Communion & Stewardship’ ratified by Ratzinger himself which also accepts polygenism

I didn’t know that Pope Benedict XVI was quoted in "Communion & Stewardship. What part has his quotes on polygenism? I am not familiar with every section.

Perhaps I misunderstood you about Benedict XVI, since I have never seen a direct statement, in context, affirming in no uncertain words that he absolutely accepted polygenism, per se., because he deliberately chose to deny the Catholic doctrine regarding two sole parents of humanity. In other words, he was not referring to a study of polygenism or something like that. By the way, I do not accept media reports as evidence of what a Pope says. Those reports are loads of fun, full of rumors, but not always accurate.

Thank you

Pray tell , how the ‘real Catholicism of Jesus Christ that deals with eternal life’ has anything to do with polygenism.

Of course, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with polygenism. That is why polygenism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church and monogenism is.

 

[Benadam]

Myth is just a literary form. It doesn’t mean 'fictional story’The events that surround the fall and the description of the sublime states of human life in the beginning,make it a fitting means of expressing truth for the ancient authors…

 

[minkymurph]

Myth is just a literary form. It doesn’t mean 'fictional story’The events that surround the fall and the description of the sublime states of human life in the beginning,make it a fitting means of expressing truth for the ancient authors…

I’m glad you said that. It is a literary form of writing. The term ‘myth’ is often misunderstood and misinterpreted because of the way the term is understood today. Using the term ‘myth’ in relation to Ancient near East writings does not mean the work is mere fiction.

To illustrate, I once had an English tutor who said there is no such thing as a work of pure fiction; that all ‘stories’ are based on realities and writers draw on actual people and events. The only story reputed to be completely ‘non-factual’ and pure imagination is Jack and the Beanstalk. Writers draw from the world they live in, personal experience, and real people. Tennessee Williams character Blanche is reputed to be based on his sister, Dickens works are based on real happenings and experiences. In light of revisionist history, we know that ‘History is written by the Victors,’ and history is written from certain perspectives. Fictional works give us greater insight as to how historical events and happenings impacted on people’s lives. An example of that is Hemingway’s, ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls.’ All in all, we can’t dismiss anything as a work of pure fiction.

Therefore, myth narratives of the Ancient Near East such as the Genesis accounts of creation are not works of pure fiction arising solely from the author’s imagination for the purpose of entertaining audiences and readers with a good story. They were used to pass on beliefs and values and writers drew on actual events and experiences which was a common practice in the Ancient Near East.

 

[minkymurph]

Wow! Two major plot lines in the first testament that are mythical in nature. Do you know if Ratzinger mentioned any parts of the second, new testament that are also “mythical in nature”?

According to Genesis 6:19,20, Noah is asked to take two of every kind of animal into the ark. However, in Genesis 7:2-4 God asks Noah to take 7 pairs of clean animals, a pair that are not clean and seven pairs of birds. Which was it?

This point may seem insignificant. The reason I’m using this is to illustrate the literary composition and the purpose of myth narratives. Myth narratives are not plots to deceive and they do not spring from the authors imagination. They are based on actual events and people. However, the author does not intend every word and logistical detail to be understood in a literal sense; which is why this account is termed a ‘myth narrative.’ The account of the flood is written in a particular literary style which was common in the Ancient writings. If anyone is all that interested I’ll explain it but suffice to say for now, the literary style of writing and construction of the text tells us the climax of the story, the whole point the author is driving at, is ‘God remembered Noah’ In addition, the author repeatedly states how Noah does as God commands him so this is why he is remembered. Therefore, the author relating the story in order for the audience and future readers to know exactly how many animals Noah took into the ark, and to what extent the waters covered the earth.

I would also question if Genesis 6 and 7 are written by the same author, and if Genesis 7 is a separate account rather than a continuation of Genesis 6. I say this because it is not unusual for one author to include details another author may have omit in a parallel account. A comparison of the Gospels illustrates that, and the importance of this is knowing who is writing the account and why.

Of course that’s only an opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[shocktrooper]

I’m glad you said that. It is a literary form of writing. The term ‘myth’ is often misunderstood and misinterpreted because of the way the term is understood today. Using the term ‘myth’ in relation to Ancient near East writings does not mean the work is mere fiction.

To illustrate, I once had an English tutor who said there is no such thing as a work of pure fiction; that all ‘stories’ are based on realities and writers draw on actual people and events. The only story reputed to be completely ‘non-factual’ and pure imagination is Jack and the Beanstalk. Writers draw from the world they live in, personal experience, and real people. Tennessee Williams character Blanche is reputed to be based on his sister, Dickens works are based on real happenings and experiences. In light of revisionist history, we know that ‘History is written by the Victors,’ and history is written from certain perspectives. Fictional works give us greater insight as to how historical events and happenings impacted on people’s lives. An example of that is Hemingway’s, ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls.’ All in all, we can’t dismiss anything as a work of pure fiction.

Therefore, myth narratives of the Ancient Near East such as the Genesis accounts of creation are not works of pure fiction arising solely from the author’s imagination for the purpose of entertaining audiences and readers with a good story. They were used to pass on beliefs and values and writers drew on actual events and experiences which was a common practice in the Ancient Near East.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification? **
Answer: In the negative to both parts.**

Humani Generis, 1950, p39

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths [Latin: mythologiis] or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

minkymurph, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were reality, not symbols of some reality. I agree that Genesis has allegory in it and uses symbols, but the Church does not allow for us to apply that to Adam and Eve.

Thanks.

 

[minkymurph]

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification? **
Answer: In the negative to both parts.**

Humani Generis, 1950, p39

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths [Latin: mythologiis] or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Thanks for the very long quote. But as I’ve read it many times on the forums I’ll cut to the chase.

minkymurph, the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were reality, not symbols of some reality. I agree that Genesis has allegory in it and uses symbols, but the Church does not allow for us to apply that to Adam and Eve.

Thanks.

This demonstrates how easy it is to misunderstand the written word and the intentions of the author.

Nowhere in my post did I state Adam and Eve are allegorical. In my post I stated that writers draw on real events and real people. I have never stated Adam and Eve and did not exist and are purely symbolic.

 

[minkymurph]

And do you think the newer testament is mythical in nature as well? It does seem to be written in similar style–with stories that are not technically possible from a human standpoint, plus lots of writers’ embellishments and color and imagination and so forth.

To my knowledge there are no myth narratives in the NT. The NT is first century, (obviously Genesis is from a much older time period) a different literary form,and the authors don’t use same literary construction that writers in the Ancient Near East did. People in the first century Roman Empire did not have the practice of using myth narratives to pass on beliefs and values.

However, a similar principle could be applied to Jesus parables. The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son may be based on a true story. Other parables are more difficult. However, some of them may contain an element of truth and are embellished and adapted by Jesus. For instance, a story not unlike the parable of the wheat and the weeds had been around for some time prior to Jesus using it to teach the Kingdom of God. I also have some vague recollection of a Roman Law concerning planting seeds in someone else’s field, which apparently sometimes happened, and a punishment for it. The point is the parables may be adapted and embellished, but they are not just a product of Jesus imagination and he uses them for a reason. Jesus uses things from everyday life such as bread, and stories his audience may be familiar with to teach them about the Kingdom of God in a way people can understand and relate to. The logistics of the parables, the degree to which they are re-adapted and embellished, are incidental to the message Jesus is trying to convey, and the audience would have understood this. That’s his disciples were sometimes confused as to his meaning and wanted him to explain further. If it was a straight forward story they wouldn’t have been.

 

[shocktrooper]

Thanks for the very long quote. But as I’ve read it many times on the forums I’ll cut to the chase.

This demonstrates how easy it is to misunderstand the written word and the intentions of the author.

Nowhere in my post did I state Adam and Eve are allegorical. In my post I stated that writers draw on real events and real people. I have never stated Adam and Eve and did not exist and are purely symbolic.

Minkymurph, I apologize for misunderstanding you. With that, I am curious where you get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis 1-3 are the genre “myth”. The PBC listing above clearly states that Genesis 1-3 are historical (history) accounts that use allegory and symbols. The Church teaches that the genre is “history”, not “myth”. The thought that Genesis 1-3 is “myth” is purely modernistic and has no root in Sacred Tradition.

Can you please link me to a Magisterial document that supports Genesis 1-3 as being “myth”?

Thanks.

 

[razredge]

I didn’t know that Pope Benedict XVI was quoted in "Communion & Stewardship. What part has his quotes on polygenism? I am not familiar with every section.

You are misrepresenting what I said:

the International Theological Commission’s document ‘Communion & Stewardship’ ratified by Ratzinger himself

I never said anything about him being quoted in it.

And it’s not a ‘media report’, it is an offical Church document from the Vatican itself:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Note the footnote

The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication.

Ratzinger, who was the President of the Commission approved the document so it cannot be contrary to Church teaching.

Of course, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with polygenism. That is why polygenism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church and monogenism is.

Good, and which is why the doctrine will change since it has nothing to do with Christ.

 

[grannymh]

You are misrepresenting what I said:

I never said anything about him being quoted in it.

My sincere apology.

When I reread your post and later checked the document, it looked like Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t actually involved in the document. Who knows? He probably checked it over and didn’t find a flat out attack on the Catholic Church. My error.

Sometimes it gets to be difficult to figure out why Pope Benedict XVI is mentioned along with polygenism. Everyone knows he follows the established Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and Eve as sole parents of our ancestors.

It seems to me that poor Pope Benedict XVI is misrepresented all over the place. Half the time, cleverness in writing makes it difficult to find out what exactly is going on. Not only that, but some, not all, people have no clue as to how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth.

 

[shocktrooper]

Ratzinger, who was the President of the Commission approved the document so it cannot be contrary to Church teaching.

I think it can be contrary to Church teaching because it is not an authoritative Church document from the Magisterium. I am not saying that the the pope is wrong, just speaking objectively.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

I think it can be contrary to Church teaching because it is not an authoritative Church document from the Magisterium. I am not saying that the the pope is wrong, just speaking objectively.

Thanks.

Would it be possible to pick out the points in question and then examine each one in its context? And then compare this examination to actual doctrine. There are so many qualifying or conditional words in the English language, one can, but not necessarily will, tend to gloss over them.

My guess, which may or may not apply to this particular thread’s posters, is that some readers, not all readers and not any particular individual reader, see a harbinger for change in some, not all, publications coming from various committees or groups of people connected to the operations of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

In other words, I am trying hard not to upset anyone with my personal observations.

It is my personal observation that commissions can report what is happening in the surrounding world and then give personal opinions and speculations about what is happening in the surrounding world. I did notice at the document’s end something about written ballots of the International Theological Commission. Interesting.

Since merely presenting debatable opinions and speculations would not be considered a planned attack on the Catholic Church, there is some wiggle room. The head of a commission can, or may, allow debatable opinions and speculations to be presented on an informational basis. This does not automatically mean that he or she actually agrees with the information. Nor does it mean that the head of a commission has the power to change Catholic doctrine which is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Ordinary folk need to keep in mind that it is God Himself Who is involved in the Catholic Church. Just because there are some, but not all, people who do not accept God’s presence, God does not disappear. On the other hand, God is respectful of human’s free will even if it means that some, not all, Catholics want to reverse God’s origin of humanity.

 

[Holly3278]

I am pretty sure that we are required to believe that Adam and Eve were actual people who committed the original sin.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Ratzinger, who was the President of the Commission approved the document so it cannot be contrary to Church teaching.

Everything a Pope says or writes is not infallible. Everything a Cardinal says, writes, or approves of being said or written is not infallible.

Popes and Cardinals are both worthy of the proper respect and hold God given (and thus lawful) authority, but everything they say isn’t necessarily the truth all of the time.

For example:

Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius because St. Athanasius would not go along with the Arian heresy. Pope Liberius later lifted the excommunication, and went on to become Pope St. Liberius. Several Church councils around the same time period issued documents supporting Arianism.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[minkymurph]

Minkymurph, I apologize for misunderstanding you. With that, I am curious where you get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis 1-3 are the genre “myth”. The PBC listing above clearly states that Genesis 1-3 are historical (history) accounts that use allegory and symbols. The Church teaches that the genre is “history”, not “myth”. The thought that Genesis 1-3 is “myth” is purely modernistic and has no root in Sacred Tradition.

No need to apologize. I’m not as sensitive as my words may suggest.

I went into this in another post - 127. However, further and more specific clarification is warranted.

Firstly, I do not have the idea the Catholic Church teaches that Genesis 1 - 3 are the genre ‘myth.’ Neither am I using the term ‘myth’ in relation to the Genesis account in a contemporary context. To explain, the term ‘myth’ is often interpreted and used today in a derogatory sense - to denote a story of piece of writing is nothing more than a figment of the author’s imagination and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I’m not using the term ‘myth’ in that context. To explain further, language dramatically changes over centuries and a term used in the past could have a completely different meaning today. To illustrate, in the past being ‘gay’ meant being happy and wanting to sing with joy. I’m sure I don’t need to explain it is used in a very different context today! To illustrate further, imagine going back in a time machine and trying to explain what an ‘e-mail’ or ‘ipod’ is, or translate them into an ancient language.

The term ‘myth narrative’ is used to describe a particular literary form, or style of writing. Myth narratives were common in the Ancient Near East and were an essential element of life in the Ancient Near East. There no institutions of learning, no religious institutions, no courts, no human rights legislation and no tv or internet. Therefore, morals and values, religious beliefs, social function, the history of the tribe or people and many other things, were preserved and passed to future generations through the telling and re-telling of ‘myth narratives.’ They also served a social function as nomadic people’s gathered around camp fires to hear these stories. ‘Story’ or ‘story telling’ does not mean pure fiction. It’s a style of teaching. I stand to be corrected but myth narratives may also be specific to a particular era. Meaning, is gives us a clue as to how old a particular piece of writing is and in what time period it may have been written which is a clue to it’s source.

The term ‘myth narrative’ in a literary sense means - ‘a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.’ It’s more than possible that the Genesis story was handed down orally from generation to generation before it was ever written down. Therefore, it is a traditional story. It is written in a narrative style; no use of personal nouns, then God did this, then God did that, then God said, this happened, then that happened - the author in effect is ‘narrating.’ The content is historical - the history of creation, an explanation of the origins of the human race and the Fall, but it’s being recounted in a certain style, (not a modern academic style) and from a theological perspective rather Creation is a both a natural and supernatural event - God, the spirit of God is involved, a serpent or snake speaks. It has a social aspect - Adam’s intimate relationship with God and Eve and consequent breakdown of the relationships. Therefore, because of the literary structure and content, Genesis 1 - 3 has been identified as a ‘myth narrative’ by biblical scholars. This school of thought has been around from the 18th century, so I don’t know if it can be termed ‘modernistic,’ but I suppose it depends on your point of view.

 

[minkymurph]

Can you please link me to a Magisterial document that supports Genesis 1-3 as being “myth”?

Thanks.

Can you please link me to a Magisterial document that supports Genesis 1-3 as being “myth”?

Thanks.

Nope - because a Magisterial document that supports Genesis 1 - 3 as being 'myth, to my knowledge, doesn’t exist. But hopefully I’ve explained use of the term ‘myth narrative.’ Identification of literary form and structure, and the historical backdrop of scripture is the task of exegesist’s and the Church neither compels it’s members to agree with the findings of exegesist’s or refute them because it is an area of study. I can direct you to various biblical commentaries outlining the opinions of Catholic exegesist’s and Catholic exegesist’s are expected to stay within a certain framework when interpreting scripture, and approach scripture through the ‘prism of faith,’ - in conjunction with what has been divinely revealed.

Among other things, myth narratives have pluralistic, theological and symbolic dimensions. However, they also have a literal sense. The literal sense does not mean a literal word for word reading of a passage of scripture, but rather placing it in it’s original context as understood by the original audience which is one method exegesist’s use to study scripture. Doing so gives us a deeper understanding of scripture was understood by the original audience, how Divine Revelation unfolded, how theological interpretations of scripture developed. Therefore, Adam and Eve may have a symbolic meaning in addition to an actual or literal one. However, according to Catholic teaching the actual events recounted in myth narratives happened and characters were real people. Therefore, while the Church does not reject the opinion Genesis 1 - 3 is myth narrative, the opinion Adam and Eve didn’t exist at all is a step outside the framework and you will never see that in a Magisterial document.