Doctrine on Adam and Eve?

[shocktrooper]

…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, (by the way, I keep wanting to call you minkmurphy for some reason) thank you for the well formed response. I understand better now what you are talking about but I still see no reason to even use the word “myth”. The Church has never used it to describe Genesis, not even in the new Catechism. It strictly stays away from that terminology. The reason being is because of what you pointed out at the tail end of your response. Since this “mythical” school of thought was around for a while, the PBC had to deal with the question in the early 1900s. The question was answered in the negative. Genesis 1-3 should not be referred to as myth in any way or on par with the myths of its day. This causes me to conclude that the word “myth”, back then, was understood to not be rooted in historical or religious truth, but mere imagination. Otherwise, why would it need to be condemned. This differs from what you seem to be saying, which is that myth is rooted in real events, but just embellished for teaching purposes. I see this at odds with what the PBC concluded. There is great danger in using the word “myth” when it comes to Genesis, and the only purpose it serves, knowingly or unknowingly, is to remove the historical context from Sacred Scripture and put it on par with every other “religion” or “myth”.

I just don’t see why it is so hard for Catholic experts to just say that Genesis 1-3 are real events that happened at the beginning of mankind’s history that uses symbols and allegory. Why even bring in the word “myth”?

I have read author’s such as Dr. Margaret Nutting Ralph and her ideas seem to stem from a Protestant mindset. In my critique of her teachings, she has been totally influence by liberal Protestantism. Every time I see someone reference her work, I cringe. She waters down so much of Catholic Tradition in her teachings, that it is almost unrecognizable from other Christian denominations. She tries very hard to uproot the historicity out of Genesis and the Gospels, and has virtually succeeded with the help of others. They look to kill off the author of the texts by claiming someone else wrote them (especially the Gospels). This removes the authority behind the text and introduces a situation where things were handed on orally and may not be what actually happened or said. Once you get that mindset implanted in the faithful, then you can get them to believe or disbelieve anything. People of the same mindset as Dr. Ralph offer unproven hypotheses and disregard Sacred Tradition in the process. This is to be expected from Protestants, but not faithful Catholics.

I am not claiming you are like any of the above. I am just trying to explain a little further why I am cautious with what “theologians” or others write. If it is not rooted in Church doctrine, then I really could care less at the end of the day. The same goes form my own opinions and unproven theories or hypotheses.

God bless you, minkymurph.

shocktrooper

 

[minkymurph]

I just don’t see why it is so hard for Catholic experts to just say that Genesis 1-3 are real events that happened at the beginning of mankind’s history that uses symbols and allegory. Why even bring in the word “myth”?

They do. Funny you should ask this. When I was responding to you, I was going to write ‘myth’ is such an incredible bad word to use because it’s misleading, in today’s language doesn’t accurately describe the literary form in question, creates a negative image of it,
and perhaps someone should come up with a much better term. I could start my own campaign for ‘biblical political correctness.’

I am not claiming you are like any of the above. I am just trying to explain a little further why I am cautious with what “theologians” or others write. If it is not rooted in Church doctrine, then I really could care less at the end of the day. The same goes form my own opinions and unproven theories or hypotheses.

God bless you, minkymurph.

shocktrooper

I appreciate you saying that. You are right to cautious of ‘theologians,’ exegesist’s or what others write. We don’t have to just jump in the minute someone comes up with a new thought or finding and go off into a whole tangent on it. I’m all for being open to new ideas, but I like to give them great deal of consideration before I decide were I stand. I like exegesis, and enjoy discussing it, but I know it’s limitations. While it’s based on scholarship, it’s still limited to what we know at present and open to human fallibility. Whose to say some clever scholar in centuries to come won’t throw out everything we think at the moment and replace it with something more exciting? In addition, exegesists don’t agree on everything. There’s a consensus of opinion on some things, but on other’s there are major differences.

Personally speaking, I couldn’t care less whether we descended from one human pair or not. If people believe we are descended from one human pair that’s there prerogative. What I do see as a problem is monogenism being proposed as a scientific fact when we don’t know it is. Monogenism is based on a religious belief not science. I also have difficulty with the view monogenism is a divinely revealed truth and part of the deposit of faith. Genesis was not written to endorse belief in monogenism. In addition, God was not inspiring the author so readers know monogenism is a fact. While Genesis is a historical account, it is salvation history - an inspired writing in that God reveals his plan for the salvation of the human race, not their biological origins. However, while current scientific theories point to polygenism, it can’t be considered an absolute and monogenism beyond all realms of possibility. I bet if the religious world publicly stated that’s what they now believe, in years to come a clone of Richard Dawkins would take delight in proposing a completely different theory and belittle the religious world for going along with it.

 

[razredge]

However, while current scientific theories point to polygenism, it can’t be considered an absolute and monogenism beyond all realms of possibility. .

I don’t think you quite understand what is meant by ‘current scientific theories point to polygenism’. This suggests that there could be later scientific theories that do an about face and prefer monogenism, which is simply not true (unless the Christian fundamentalists take over science).

Any new scientific theory will have to explain all the findings and observations found by the previous theory , thus a theory of quantum gravity will have to explain all the findings of newtonian gravity and will have to work just like the old theory in large, non-quantum applications.

So it’s not like some possible new evolutionary theory can completely reverse the findings of the current theory, which is what a shift back to monogenistic theories of human origin would mean.

At this point, pretty much the only way polygenism can be false is if God faked the genetic and archaeological evidence to make it appear so

 

[razredge]

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

Good, then Humani Generis isn’t infallible teaching on monogenism either. As prominent Catholic Answers apologists like Mark Shea and Jimmy Akin have noted.

 

[razredge]

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.

“Probably checked over it” - he’s not a school teacher looking at a student’s essy. He is formally approving a official statement by the Church not only in his position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but also as President of the International Theological Commission which wrote the report.

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.

That is an assertion, we do not know what the Pope himself thinks unless he has said as much - otherwise it is equally likely that as the document says he believes in Adam & Eve as symbols of human unity.

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.

Hardly, you simply like thinking that quotes and statements attributed to him that you disagree with are mere misrepresentations - they’re not.

For example he clearly doesn’t believe in a literal, biological Adam & Eve:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God”. The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man … herein … lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

— Joseph Ratzinger

Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, S.D.S. Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15–16

 

[grannymh]

For example he clearly doesn’t believe in a literal, biological Adam & Eve:

Here is an interesting quote from
Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, S.D.S. Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15–16

"The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it."

Since the theory of evolution does NOT invalidate the faith, that means that the original faith statement about a real biological Adam and Eve stands as is.

I have enjoyed our discussions. I have learned quite a bit about how people structure their objections to basic Catholic doctrines. Thank you. And you may have the last word.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[buffalo]

“Probably checked over it” - he’s not a school teacher looking at a student’s essy. He is formally approving a official statement by the Church not only in his position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but also as President of the International Theological Commission which wrote the report.

That is an assertion, we do not know what the Pope himself thinks unless he has said as much - otherwise it is equally likely that as the document says he believes in Adam & Eve as symbols of human unity.

Hardly, you simply like thinking that quotes and statements attributed to him that you disagree with are mere misrepresentations - they’re not.

For example he clearly doesn’t believe in a literal, biological Adam & Eve:

Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, S.D.S. Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15–16

Pope’s Easter 2011 Vigil Homily: We Celebrate the First Day of the New Creation

…As believers we answer, with the creation account and with John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think you quite understand what is meant by ‘current scientific theories point to polygenism’. This suggests that there could be later scientific theories that do an about face and prefer monogenism, which is simply not true (unless the Christian fundamentalists take over science).

Do you think that’s beyond the realms of possibility? In the mid 1920’s, no one in Germany thought Hitler would ever come to power or amount to anything.

That’s a joke, but perhaps it’s a very bad one. I’m trying to say can we ever state something will never happen? To illustrate further, a prominent politician in my part of the world gave a famous, or infamous depending on how you look at it, speech in response to an appeal to talks with Sinn Fein or form a coalition government with them. In his speech he recounted how he was asked this question and stated his response was, ‘Never, Never, Never’ in a very loud voice. In years to come, what did he do? I’ll let you work it out. I have adopted a policy of ‘never say never, because never is a very long time.’ Not because of this politician but because of experience of life.

Any new scientific theory will have to explain all the findings and observations found by the previous theory , thus a theory of quantum gravity will have to explain all the findings of newtonian gravity and will have to work just like the old theory in large, non-quantum applications.

So it’s not like some possible new evolutionary theory can completely reverse the findings of the current theory, which is what a shift back to monogenistic theories of human origin would mean.

At this point, pretty much the only way polygenism can be false is if God faked the genetic and archaeological evidence to make it appear so

I don’t understand a lot about scientific theories that point to polygenism. I’ll openly admit that, it’s not my area of expertise. What I do know, is no one can predict what science will discover in the future, or what scientific theories will be proposed concerning the origins of the human race in the future. I can also say, based on my limited understanding of genetics, that human genetics are incredibly complex. It involves complex interaction between genes and environmental factors influence how these genes exhibit their affects. There is much in relation to the transmission of genes and inheritance that has yet to be discovered. We also know scientists cook the books. Mendel cooked the books. That does not mean his hypothesis wasn’t true, and science did not do a complete about turn on Medelian inheritance. However, in light of greater knowledge it required re-interpretation and taking factors into account Mendel didn’t, or didn’t know about.

Current thinking seems to be that everything can be explained by genes. I’ve just watched a documentary about the ‘warrior’ gene, and some guy in America not only escaped the the death penalty, (I don’t want to get into a debate about the morality of the death penalty) but the charge of first degree murder was reduced to one of involuntary manslaughter because he carried this ‘warrior gene’ and had a bad childhood. That’s scary. Even the expert who gave evidence expressed reservations.

In other words, as there is more we don’t know than we do, and crystal balls are totally unreliable, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that scientific evidence suggesting monogensim could be discovered. If you’re saying that polygenism is not just a theory, that it has been irrevocably established to the same degree as geocentricity, and any possibility of monogenism has been ruled out the altogether, that’s a different matter, and I couldn’t argue with you because I wouldn’t have the scientific knowledge or expertise to do so. Meaning, what I ask myself is do I think it’s true? If it is, then it can’t be contrary to other things that are true.

To sum up, this is were I would stand on the issue. People are free to believe in monogenism and interpret the bible accordingly if they choose. However, they cannot
compel others to agree if scientific evidence has established polygenism.

 

[buffalo]

Do you think that’s beyond the realms of possibility? In the mid 1920’s, no one in Germany thought Hitler would ever come to power or amount to anything.

That’s a joke, but perhaps it’s a very bad one. I’m trying to say can we ever state something will never happen? To illustrate further, a prominent politician in my part of the world gave a famous, or infamous depending on how you look at it, speech in response to an appeal to talks with Sinn Fein or form a coalition government with them. In his speech he recounted how he was asked this question and stated his response was, ‘Never, Never, Never’ in a very loud voice. In years to come, what did he do? I’ll let you work it out. I have adopted a policy of ‘never say never, because never is a very long time.’ Not because of this politician but because of experience of life.

I don’t understand a lot about scientific theories that point to polygenism. I’ll openly admit that, it’s not my area of expertise. What I do know, is no one can predict what science will discover in the future, or what scientific theories will be proposed concerning the origins of the human race in the future. I can also say, based on my limited understanding of genetics, that human genetics are incredibly complex. It involves complex interaction between genes and environmental factors influence how these genes exhibit their affects. There is much in relation to the transmission of genes and inheritance that has yet to be discovered. We also know scientists cook the books. Mendel cooked the books. That does not mean his hypothesis wasn’t true, and science did not do a complete about turn on Medelian inheritance. However, in light of greater knowledge it required re-interpretation and taking factors into account Mendel didn’t, or didn’t know about.

Current thinking seems to be that everything can be explained by genes. I’ve just watched a documentary about the ‘warrior’ gene, and some guy in America not only escaped the the death penalty, (I don’t want to get into a debate about the morality of the death penalty) but the charge of first degree murder was reduced to one of involuntary manslaughter because he carried this ‘warrior gene’ and had a bad childhood. That’s scary. Even the expert who gave evidence expressed reservations.

In other words, as there is more we don’t know than we do, and crystal balls are totally unreliable, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that scientific evidence suggesting monogensim could be discovered. If you’re saying that polygenism is not just a theory, that it has been irrevocably established to the same degree as geocentricity, and any possibility of monogenism has been ruled out the altogether, that’s a different matter, and I couldn’t argue with you because I wouldn’t have the scientific knowledge or expertise to do so. Meaning, what I ask myself is do I think it’s true? If it is, then it can’t be contrary to other things that are true.

To sum up, this is were I would stand on the issue. People are free to believe in monogenism and interpret the bible accordingly if they choose. However, they cannot
compel others to agree if scientific evidence has established polygenism.

Current thinking is actually going away from genes. There is more going on.

Genetic Piano

 

[shocktrooper]

Good, then Humani Generis isn’t infallible teaching on monogenism either. As prominent Catholic Answers apologists like Mark Shea and Jimmy Akin have noted.

Humani Generis is binding on all Catholics. It was not given in an infallible way, but it is certainly binding. And just because something has not been declared an infallible teaching does not make it false. Faithful Catholics are not allowed to believe and teach polygenism and still be faithful Catholics. The Church has not opened that door for us, regardless of what you and all the scientists and theologians in the world may think. It is quite clear from your postings that your faith lies in science and not in Jesus Christ, Whom gave us His Church to guide us in ALL TRUTH.

God bless and take care. I pray that your faith in Mother Church is strengthened today.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well let’s get a definitive answer from the actual CA apologists. See the following links.
Did the entire race come from one man and one woman?

What book to give a religion teacher who teaches that Adam and Eve are myths??
Did God create more “parents” than Adam & Eve so that Cain could have a wife?
Adam, Eve, and Evolution

  	 				Q:“ 			
  	In light of all the evidence proving  evolution, to be a faithful Catholic does one have to believe that there  was an original couple called Adam and Eve? 				        			
  	”

   			 				A: 			
  	It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first    parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called  polygenism.   It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that there was one  set of   parents, and it was they who committed an offense against God,  and   that offense has had lasting effects for mankind. This is the  doctrine   of original sin, the sin that occurred at the origin of the  human   race. C. S. Lewis argued that the existence of original sin is  perhaps   one of the most obvious facts of human life, even to  non-believers.

Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go against the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original sin. In fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for original sin if that calamitous falling can’t be traced to a single man, Adam.

In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated,
When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. (Humani Generis 37) Concerning your presupposition about “all the evidence proving evolution,” understand that the theory of evolution is not only not proven, but many scholars are abandoning it as at odds with scientific findings. To learn about problems with the theory of evolution, you might read Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

Catholic Answers: This Rock: Quick Questions: Original Sin

So, this settles the debate as to whether polygenism is allowed as a belief for a faithful Catholic.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)