Father Robert Barron said that Adam was a figurative figure not a literal one? Help!

[JamesTheJust]

first this was mentioned 1500 years ago so because of this doesn’t represent the current mageisterium. Just because a pope 1500 years ago said X doesn’t necessarily mean that it still applies today. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples of something a pope said in the 6th century is different than something a pope said in the 20th or 21st century, but it can happen. We as Catholic are obligated to follow the current magisterium not a past magisterium. This is the issues of those who don’t believe in the authority of the Vatican II, they are obeying a magisterium that no longer exists and only existed prior to Vatican II, now the magisterium has developed its teaching to develop the liturgy to what we have now. I’m not saying you are doing this but just be careful when you post what centuries old popes say about certain issues there is the possibility that a more current pope clarified that pope’s teaching which would change the interpretation of a certain issue.

For example many incorrectly say only baptized Catholics and practicing catholics can be said based on the statement that no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, later popes clarified this to say that it is through the Church that people have salvation, non Catholics and even non-Christians have the possibility of salvation.

Truth doesn’t change. Thus, doctrines don’t change.

 

[Oreoracle]

You all are the experts on what the Church teaches. Regardless of what is taught, however, it’s obvious that monogenism can’t be true. If it were, the genetic diversity of the first several generations of humans would have been nil. One epidemic would have wiped out humanity.

This is why incest is discouraged. A species with very little genetic diversity is in constant danger of extinction.

 

[Contarini]

you are making to broad of statements on encyclicals.

if your going to say armstrong’s article is a guide on how to interpret HG, what makes him more knowledgeable than Mark Shea?

I know you will claim I’m doing an ad homine argument, but if you going to put this guy on high throne and say he is the correct interpretation and people who disagree with them are wrong than his credibility must come into question.

It’s one thing to make an argument for a issue to be completely closed, it is another thing to say this man is correct and he is who catholics should follow and believe.

I will address the article itself later, but the way you present your blog article means I’m able to question his credibility.

just for analogy sake let me say this

if you say that X is a good guide to interpret scripture. I would say what makes this guy a good guide, what gives him credibility?

I’m doing the same thing here.

Dave does not have advanced degrees, but he reads widely and intensely and is a dedicated, full-time apologist who has accepted a life of financial insecurity in order to follow what he believes to be his vocation. I have clashed with him a number of times and have often criticized his interpretations, but do not recall ever finding him in error on a matter of fact. I tend to agree with Mark more than with Dave on this and most other issues on which they differ, but they are both smart guys and worth listening to. That doesn’t mean that they should be taken as a Magisterium in themselves–of course they would both agree that they aren’t–or that someone like Fr. Barron, who does have advanced degrees (and is an ordained priest, of course) as well as the same passion to proclaim the Faith shared by Mark and Dave, should be condemned on the word of a lay apologist.

Edwin

 

[Gorgias]

You all are the experts on what the Church teaches. Regardless of what is taught, however, it’s obvious that monogenism can’t be true. If it were, the genetic diversity of the first several generations of humans would have been nil. One epidemic would have wiped out humanity.

Unless there were a wide variety of hominids, and only two from these were given souls and became human.

 

[JamesTheJust]

You all are the experts on what the Church teaches. Regardless of what is taught, however, it’s obvious that monogenism can’t be true. If it were, the genetic diversity of the first several generations of humans would have been nil. One epidemic would have wiped out humanity.

This is why incest is discouraged. A species with very little genetic diversity is in constant danger of extinction.

I recommend that you check out the works of Professor Edward Feser on the subject. I think he justifies monogenism quite well.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t understand how someone can say they do not believe in monogenism and claim to be Catholic.
If one does not have the imagination to see at least the possibility of Adam, how can one believe that the eucharist is truly the body of Christ?
How can one hope for the new Jerusalem, if one does not comprehend Eden?
People are entitled to there beliefs. Father Barron would not actually have as much leeway seeing that he represents the Church and its teachings.

 

[clem456]

Unless there were a wide variety of hominids, and only two from these were given souls and became human.

Exactly. Science can be very helpful in supporting theology.

Let me just observe in regards to the preceeding discussion…having authority over a subject is not the same thing as having a specific competence in it.
The Church does not have competence in science, but science is at the service of the truth the Church expresses. So I would be hesitant to say the Church has no authority over science. Certainly the Church will not involve itself in the details or research and inquiry. But for instance, if scientists were to somehow claim proof that God does not exist, the Church has the authority to say science is absolutely wrong, because that theory would contradict larger truth.

 

[catholictiger]

I don’t understand how someone can say they do not believe in monogenism and claim to be Catholic.
If one does not have the imagination to see at least the possibility of Adam, how can one believe that the eucharist is truly the body of Christ?
How can one hope for the new Jerusalem, if one does not comprehend Eden?
People are entitled to there beliefs. Father Barron would not actually have as much leeway seeing that he represents the Church and its teachings.

I’ll say this a theologian can speculate on polygenism in an attempt to find a connection between that and original sin. While I could be wrong on this matter, as long as they don’t teach that it is the doctrine of the Church they are not at issue.

 

[catholictiger]

Truth doesn’t change. Thus, doctrines don’t change.

doctrines develop which may appear as a change, that is what I was trying to explain. Sorry for the confusion

 

[JamesTheJust]

It’s right there in the text. Mark Shea didn’t invent it. He’s just pointing it out to a non-academic audience. Fr. Barron doesn’t have the patience to do so, probably because Fr. Barron is an academic who is used to interacting with people who think he’s pretty much a flaming fundamentalist, and finds it hard to take the trouble to defend himself against people who think he’s a liberal.

The text says that it is not seen as reconcilable. Nor will it ever be. The text does not say, “if we find a way to reconcile polygenism with Tradition we’ll change our doctrine.” The Church’s doctrine does not change.

Name one that did?

Well, Humani Generis, for one. All those who disagree with it disagree with the Church, and incur all the penalties that that entails.

Sure, there are dissenting theologians, but, well, there’s a reason they’re called dissenting.

 

[JamesTheJust]

doctrines develop which may appear as a change, that is what I was trying to explain. Sorry for the confusion

Saying “it’s not OK” one day and saying “it’s OK” the next day is not development. It’s change.

 

[catholictiger]

The text says that it is not seen as reconcilable. Nor will it ever be. The text does not say, “if we find a way to reconcile polygenism with Tradition we’ll change our doctrine.” The Church’s doctrine does not change.

no it says now it is not apparent . . . .

what this implies, at-least according to mark shea, currently nothing in tradition or our interpretation of scripture points to the possibility of polygenism. But one day in the future it could happen, very unlikely but the Pope leaves open the possibility.

The pope is saying that the current movement of the Churches theology strongly supports monogenism, but in no way is he claiming that monogenism is infallible universal magisterial teaching.

Well, Humani Generis, for one. All those who disagree with it disagree with the Church, and incur all the penalties that that entails.

Sure, there are dissenting theologians, but, well, there’s a reason they’re called dissenting.

you need to understand that the Church has no definitively declared that monogensism must be followed by Catholics. The worst a theologian is doing by having the opinion of monogenism is not practicing religious submission of mind and will.

Again monogenism is not infallibly taught, the Pope is just saying that the current theological movement of the Church supports monogenism and he strongly advices against no believing in this theological movement.

Just to clarify

you have posted a blog post from a guy that you have yet to defend his credibility, and logically you are asserting that he has the correct interoperation of HG and others who disagree with that blog post are dissenting from Catholic Teaching. All those authors and teachers that I have brought up previously all seem to say the same thing, the argument I have made many many times in this thread.

 

[JamesTheJust]

no it says now it is not apparent . . . .

what this implies, at-least according to mark shea, currently nothing in tradition or our interpretation of scripture points to the possibility of polygenism. But one day in the future it could happen, very unlikely but the Pope leaves open the possibility.

The pope is saying that the current movement of the Churches theology strongly supports monogenism, but in no way is he claiming that monogenism is infallible universal magisterial teaching.

Does the encyclical say that the teaching can change? No.

[QUOTEyou need to understand that the Church has no definitively declared that monogensism must be followed by Catholics. The worst a theologian is doing by having the opinion of monogenism is not practicing religious submission of mind and will.
[/QUOTE]

“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion” sounds pretty definitive to me.

you have posted a blog post from a guy that you have yet to defend his credibility,

An argumentum ad hominem again? Come on now.

and logically you are asserting that he has the correct interoperation of HG and others who disagree with that blog post are dissenting from Catholic Teaching. All those authors and teachers that I have brought up previously all seem to say the same thing, the argument I have made many many times in this thread.

You brought up one, Mark Shea. Are you arguing that because his argument is popular, it’s correct? That’s argumentum ad populum, another fallacy.

The point is, Mark Shea is claiming that an escape clause exists which gives us a “Get Out of Doctrine Free” card. As I’ve shown, he’s wrong.

 

[clem456]

Here is John Paul 2 commenting on Humaii Generis and on the relationship between science and the Church.
This is a must read. It directly addresses the discussion here.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EV-----ON (banned topic)
…
To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth. That is the same invitation which I renew today, with the certainty that we can all draw profit from “the fruitfulness of frank dialogue between the Church and science.”
…
For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

 

[Aloysium]

I’ll say this a theologian can speculate on polygenism in an attempt to find a connection between that and original sin. While I could be wrong on this matter, as long as they don’t teach that it is the doctrine of the Church they are not at issue.

It makes sense to say that if the evidence is pointing in a particular direction, it would be very important to look at the repercussions and the meaning of that possible reality.
If polygenism were true, what would it mean to, among many other things:

• how we see ourselves. Is there one humanity or just diverse entities? Am I in a fallen state, but meant for a greater state of being? If that is the case, how did his all come to be?
• how would we view our relationship with one another? Can we truly be brothers and sisters? Are we actually complete within our individual selves?
• how we see our relationship with God. In what way did the Word become flesh? How can there be a true Vine? Would not such a concept be nonsense unless there were one humanity, of which we are all individual expressions? What constitutes His Church?

IMHO: Most people who seem to support polygenism are acting as apologists for the current very limited scientific understanding of man. I have yet to encounter a good theological argument that demonstrates how polygenism is superior in explaining our relationship with God,.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I thought church teaching for centuries was that this story was specifically and literally true?

(I’m probably very behind in this thread…)
.

To update you quickly:

For Catholics,
Theistic evolution =

Polygenism = :dts:

 

[catholictiger]

It makes sense to say that if the evidence is pointing in a particular direction, it would be very important to look at the repercussions and the meaning of that possible reality.
If polygenism were true, what would it mean to, among many other things:

• how we see ourselves. Is there one humanity or just diverse entities? Am I in a fallen state, but meant for a greater state of being? If that is the case, how did his all come to be?
• how would we view our relationship with one another? Can we truly be brothers and sisters? Are we actually complete within our individual selves?
• how we see our relationship with God. In what way did the Word become flesh? How can there be a true Vine? Would not such a concept be nonsense unless there were one humanity, of which we are all individual expressions? What constitutes His Church?

IMHO: Most people who seem to support polygenism are acting as apologists for the current very limited scientific understanding of man. I have yet to encounter a good theological argument that demonstrates how polygenism is superior in explaining our relationship with God,.

I hope you know that I in no way support polygenism I don’t think we will ever reach that point. I think monogenism is spot on and will never be incorrect, but this is my opinion which appears to be the movement of good orthodox theology in the Church.

What I have constantly tried to point out is that HG doesn’t make a dogmatic statement on the matter.

 

[catholictiger]

I thought church teaching for centuries was that this story was specifically and literally true?

(I’m probably very behind in this thread…)
.

it is mostly symbolic. But the Church has talked about how we must descend from parents because original sin must be passed on to us somehow. This is the center of this discussion so far.

 

[catholictiger]

Analysis of Armstrong article.

part 1 criticism of topic of this thread

Here is the transcription of that portion:

Adam. Now, don’t read it literally. We’re not talking about a literal figure. We’re talking in theological poetry. Adam: the first human being . . .

Armstrong will go on to call Fr. Barron herodox

There are a multitude of reasons (which the author doesn’t consider) that Father Barron said not literally.

one he is referenig to what he may say latter, name and categorize the animals, that Adam never existed. Animals existed before man and it is very unlikely that the first ensouled human was responsible for every animal name who lived in the same area as he.

two he could be simply reminding the viewer that we are talking about the symbolism of Gensis and that we aren’t trying to answer questions about our first parent.

Third our first Father (Adam) did exist and he was a part of the first original sin of humanity. BUT, Gensis is telling theological poetry, using fictional stories to teach theological truths. Jesus does this all the time, he tells the story of a land owner, a land lord, a forgiving father, all of those stories probably never happened but they teach theological truth. Fr. Barron may be attempting to point out the exact same thing.

looking at the video it appears that Barron is doing the third option. He knows Adam existed but he also knows that Gensis is most correctly interpreted as allegorical or stories (that aren’t written as a historical account of events), which main purpose is to give theological truths. If you watch past this one tiny few second clip you will notice that Fr. Barron is making analogies using the figure of Adam presented in Scripture. He is in no way saying Adam didn’t exist. Personally I think if you would ask him: you believe in Adam? yes, of course. Is the Adam you believe in the same Adam in Gensis? yes and no, yes because Gensis is referring to our first father our first earthly parent, no in the fact that I suspect the majority of the stories told about Adam never really happened, rather they are used to teach theological truth. Did Noah live hundreds of years, no.

but enough on this issue let’s move on

if you look at Barron’s video as extracting the deeper theological meanings of Gensis (instead of a commentary on oringal sin and Genesis) the criticisms he uses in HG don’t apply. Fr. Barron is following it but it is hard to make a connection because Fr. Barron isn’t specifically talking about what HG talked about at the instance.

Note this is ALL speculation but what I believe it proves is that there isn’t one way to look at what Fr. Barron said. I think by not assuming malicious intent or not assuming something along the lines of every questionable statement by a theologian is probably heresy, you can come to the conclusion that Fr. Barron is not teaching something heretical it’s just the way people respond is to negative of Barron.

as I go on through the rest of this article I find most of it pointless when you bring up the idea that Fr. Barron does believe in Adam but he is portrayed completely different in Gensis.

The problem (among many) is that the New Testament certainly accepts the Genesis account as literal, and this person as Adam, and his wife as Eve: precisely as stated. Thus Jesus said:

this is something that makes me think a-little bit. He seems to take the idea that OT historical figures are considered as real figures by Jesus, which means all of Gensis should be taken as literal.

The thing is from as early as Augustine Genesis 1 was considered an allegory, Christ in the statement he quoted was not making biblical interpretations about the genera of the book of Gensis. Rather he referred to historical figures to point out bloodshed

All of this smacks of good old-fashioned liberal heterodoxy regarding issues of historicity in Genesis. If this whole thing is simply a case of poor choice of words, or some misunderstanding on my part, I’d be more than happy – in fact, delighted – to be corrected, and to remove this paper if it is no longer necessary.

he says this and I hope he stays true to his word. The problem is I think Fr. Barron is so use to his things being taken WAY out of context that he doesn’t deal with everyone. Fr. Barron has one slip of the tongue and the who conservative Catholic world jumps on him and calls hims a heretic.

The author makes a decent argument in regard to Father Barron, but I think what falls with it is that he takes the original statement well out of context.

I will say one last thing and this is all personal opinion. If Fr. Barron is a heretic and in control of a seminary do you think our bishops would stay silent? I would hope not but the only negativity against Fr. Barron comes from blogs. I trust that Fr. Barron is orthodox because I trust that more and more of our Catholic seminaries are being lead by good orthodox priests. Maybe I’m wrong but I trust that Fr. Barron is a good orthodox priest and the issues that arose I explain it by the simple fact that people didn’t hear what he said carefully enough.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Analysis of Armstrong article.

part 1 criticism of topic of this thread

Armstrong will go on to call Fr. Barron herodox

There are a multitude of reasons (which the author doesn’t consider) that Father Barron said not literally.

one he is referenig to what he may say latter, name and categorize the animals, that Adam never existed. Animals existed before man and it is very unlikely that the first ensouled human was responsible for every animal name who lived in the same area as he.

two he could be simply reminding the viewer that we are talking about the symbolism of Gensis and that we aren’t trying to answer questions about our first parent.

Third our first Father (Adam) did exist and he was a part of the first original sin of humanity. BUT, Gensis is telling theological poetry, using fictional stories to teach theological truths. Jesus does this all the time, he tells the story of a land owner, a land lord, a forgiving father, all of those stories probably never happened but they teach theological truth. Fr. Barron may be attempting to point out the exact same thing.

looking at the video it appears that Barron is doing the third option. He knows Adam existed but he also knows that Gensis is most correctly interpreted as allegorical or stories (that aren’t written as a historical account of events), which main purpose is to give theological truths. If you watch past this one tiny few second clip you will notice that Fr. Barron is making analogies using the figure of Adam presented in Scripture. He is in no way saying Adam didn’t exist. Personally I think if you would ask him: you believe in Adam? yes, of course. Is the Adam you believe in the same Adam in Gensis? yes and no, yes because Gensis is referring to our first father our first earthly parent, no in the fact that I suspect the majority of the stories told about Adam never really happened, rather they are used to teach theological truth. Did Noah live hundreds of years, no.

but enough on this issue let’s move on

if you look at Barron’s video as extracting the deeper theological meanings of Gensis (instead of a commentary on oringal sin and Genesis) the criticisms he uses in HG don’t apply. Fr. Barron is following it but it is hard to make a connection because Fr. Barron isn’t specifically talking about what HG talked about at the instance.

Note this is ALL speculation but what I believe it proves is that there isn’t one way to look at what Fr. Barron said. I think by not assuming malicious intent or not assuming something along the lines of every questionable statement by a theologian is probably heresy, you can come to the conclusion that Fr. Barron is not teaching something heretical it’s just the way people respond is to negative of Barron.

as I go on through the rest of this article I find most of it pointless when you bring up the idea that Fr. Barron does believe in Adam but he is portrayed completely different in Gensis.

this is something that makes me think a-little bit. He seems to take the idea that OT historical figures are considered as real figures by Jesus, which means all of Gensis should be taken as literal.

The thing is from as early as Augustine Genesis 1 was considered an allegory, Christ in the statement he quoted was not making biblical interpretations about the genera of the book of Gensis. Rather he referred to historical figures to point out bloodshed

he says this and I hope he stays true to his word. The problem is I think Fr. Barron is so use to his things being taken WAY out of context that he doesn’t deal with everyone. Fr. Barron has one slip of the tongue and the who conservative Catholic world jumps on him and calls hims a heretic.

The author makes a decent argument in regard to Father Barron, but I think what falls with it is that he takes the original statement well out of context.

I will say one last thing and this is all personal opinion. If Fr. Barron is a heretic and in control of a seminary do you think our bishops would stay silent? I would hope not but the only negativity against Fr. Barron comes from blogs. I trust that Fr. Barron is orthodox because I trust that more and more of our Catholic seminaries are being lead by good orthodox priests. Maybe I’m wrong but I trust that Fr. Barron is a good orthodox priest and the issues that arose I explain it by the simple fact that people didn’t hear what he said carefully enough.

I do think that Armstrong’s reaction to Fr Barron was a bit extreme and unnecessary, but the article shows how to correctly interpret Humani Generis.