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

[catholictiger]

note: I hope you don’t throw Barron under the bus for this one comment that is clearly taken out of context.

again I assume when a priest speaks on theological matters he has no malicious intent and he speaks in line with the truth, only if I know that person has a history of heretical speech do assume that he isn’t speaking in line with the truth.

with the exception of one overreaction by Vloris and supports, and one video where he says something questionable (which isn’t really that bad when you break it down)

Barron has been very orthodox.

 

[JamesTheJust]

note: I hope you don’t throw Barron under the bus for this one comment that is clearly taken out of context.

again I assume when a priest speaks on theological matters he has no malicious intent and he speaks in line with the truth, only if I know that person has a history of heretical speech do assume that he isn’t speaking in line with the truth.

I agree. Fr Barron is very orthodox, and I’m sure he is really in line with the Church on this matter. And if he’s not, I’m even surer that he’ll be open for correction.

 

[catholictiger]

I agree. Fr Barron is very orthodox, and I’m sure he is really in line with the Church on this matter. And if he’s not, I’m even surer that he’ll be open for correction.

Good to see we agree

 

[clem456]

What about John Paul 2’s comments on Humanii Generis?
Is there anything of value in his comments?

 

[catholictiger]

What about John Paul 2’s comments on Humanii Generis?
Is there anything of value in his comments?

JPII doesn’t comment on this issue specifically in that article, but he does set a way to approach science.

1. Science and Theology are two separate fields and have two different areas they study in Truth. To put it simply, Science deals with observable things only, theology deals with what God has handed down to us Through Jesus Christ and through his word;.
2. Neither Science or Theology should step into the other’s field of study. For example there are some who say that the Big Bang is the proof for the existence of God, this is overstepping the bounds of Theology (This is the exact example he uses in this article). On the other side you shouldn’t say that the development of the early universe proves that Genesis is a fictional story and shouldn’t be listened too.
3. Rather Science and Theology should have a harmony between each other. The insights of science should contribute to theology. JPII calls for something as big as what happened during the time of Aquinas, who used the insights of philosophy to understand deeper the hypostatic union.
4. He challenges theologians to know Science very very well.

a few other things but this is the main thing

I think in light of this our theological theories of the first humans, Adam and Eve, the creation of the word, need to take into consideration what science has to say. A theological theory that says that Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens and from them the entire human race (with no interbreeding) are direct descendants from them. There is a major issue with at theory like this, genetics says that a species can’t survive or can’t grow if there are only two members of that species, there will not be enough genetic diversity for it to survive. (note: this is an example and in no way comments on what the Church teaches on this matter) (Note 2: I will not discuss theories on how our first two parents could pass down original sin to all human beings, it is to close to a banned topic on this board)

 

[catholictiger]

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.

than I will address his argument on HG

some issues I see

1. His bold conveniently leaves out the phrase “Now it is.” This phrase is what most of the theologians I agree with point out int his discussion. Now it is clearly points to that currently in this time in Church History it isn’t apparent . . . . . . when you put these three words in context of the rest of that Paragraph it appears that there is a possibility of future development that could open up the possibly of polygenism being a plausible theological theory for Catholics to hold. In light of the lines before Now it is, he appears to be saying today Catholics can’t hold polygenism because it doesn’t mesh with the doctrine of original sin. This could change.
2. I think all of the talk about Adam must be a literal person in order for the typology of Christ and Adam to happen. This is a wrong assumption, let me explain. A story that is an allegory like the flood of Noah can be a type of a new testament figure, who is literal. A type comes to us through scripture not through the literal person. For example, if the Ark of the Covenant never existed (which I think is absurd) or Moses never saw a burning Bush (which I don’t think is the case) this would not change it’s typology. The typology he explains that proves there must be a literal adam figure is wrong, Adam can be completely allegorical and it wouldn’t change the typology at all (Note: I believe Adam really existed, was his name Adam maybe, but we had a first Dad)
3. he says that many passages in the NT accept Gensis as Literal, I would be very very careful in saying this. First there are many scientific issues with Genesis if you take it literally than you are rejecting widely held scientific belief. Sure the figures he brought up are historical figures but I don’t think that necessarily makes their story in the OT literal. Plus I think you could also consider the possibly that Christ is speaking to the people of his time, the Jews believed the stories of the Torah to be true and actual historical events, if Christ were to say that Genesis wasn’t literal many people would get mad at him. Jesus isn’t lying but he is approaching where people are. He uses the stories of the OT to teach lessons even if they aren’t literal. Plus no-one alive killed abel or killed Zechari’ah, they are stories of the OT that every Jew knew.
4. he quotes JPII saying “he disobedience of Adam ‘the first man,’ figure of that future one, which occurred at the beginning of history.” Why would the first man be put in quotes? There could be a reason he does this that has nothing to do with the possibly that Adam represented multiple people or something or that Adam can’t be allegorical, I just find it interesting. But again this doesn’t elevate the teaching of Adam as a literal figure to universal magisterial teaching.

Some things he didn’t consider that I think are important and add to this discussion.

1. this quote from Shea’s article, I believe is spot on

(In fact, you might want to check over the whole description of creation and the fall in CCC 355-409; looking over it quickly, it appears to me to carefully avoid claiming there were two. When it does mention “Adam and Eve”, eg. 375 and 399, a qualifier is included: “the symbolism of biblical language”, “Scripture portrays”. This is more clear in 399, I could see arguments either way about 375, but it certainly could be read that “Adam and Eve” are an appositive to “our first parents” and are not thus the substance of the “teaching” and “authentic interpretation” referred to in that paragraph.)

1. There are very specific requirements for a Teaching to be considered Infallible, and the same thing with being closed, without this we can say the Pope could be in error (which I strongly advise against) but there have been plenty of times in history where Pope’s have said something that they later had to come back and take back or re phrase. An encyclical is in no way infallible in anyway, we as Catholics are required to follow what the Pope says with religious submission of mind and will. I’m in no way saying Pope Pius is in error I think it is far from that, but I think a discussion on where this falls in magisterial teaching would be nice in this thread.

It is a good article but I think it misses and ignores some key aspects of HG which are important aspects of those who say that there is an escape clause that the Pope didn’t completely close the matter.

 

[Contarini]

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

Well, that has happened before, and no doubt it will happen again. It has not happened at the level of infallible teaching–unless you insist on classing encyclicals as infallible, in which case you’re in trouble.

I would still say that it’s development, not simply change, because there’s generally a new perspective that emerges which allows the “not OK” to become an “OK.” It’s not that the earlier condemnation was simply wrong, but that it was made in a particular context. However, I have trouble myself seeing how that covers Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of the proposition that heretics shouldn’t be burned, or Clement XI’s condemnation of the proposition that laypeople should read the Bible.

Edwin

 

[JamesTheJust]

Well, that has happened before, and no doubt it will happen again. It has not happened at the level of infallible teaching–unless you insist on classing encyclicals as infallible, in which case you’re in trouble.

I don’t, and I think I’ve made that pretty clear.

I would still say that it’s development, not simply change, because there’s generally a new perspective that emerges which allows the “not OK” to become an “OK.” It’s not that the earlier condemnation was simply wrong, but that it was made in a particular context. However, I have trouble myself seeing how that covers Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of the proposition that heretics shouldn’t be burned, or Clement XI’s condemnation of the proposition that laypeople should read the Bible.

Edwin

Those are both big topics. We’ll need to start another thread if you want to discuss them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

than I will address his argument on HG

some issues I see

1. His bold conveniently leaves out the phrase “Now it is.” This phrase is what most of the theologians I agree with point out int his discussion. Now it is clearly points to that currently in this time in Church History it isn’t apparent . . . . . . when you put these three words in context of the rest of that Paragraph it appears that there is a possibility of future development that could open up the possibly of polygenism being a plausible theological theory for Catholics to hold. In light of the lines before Now it is, he appears to be saying today Catholics can’t hold polygenism because it doesn’t mesh with the doctrine of original sin. This could change

No, it cannot change. The Church has spoken. The Pope was speaking very authoritatively here :

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Whether or not this constitutes a Dogmatic Statement misses the point. For mongynism is clearly and strongly upheld by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its discussion of the transmission of original sin. As the Pope said, it is difficult to see how this would be possible if polygynism were upheld. In my opinion it would be impossible. Give me a scenario where it would be possible. The interpretation of the passing on of original sin, as presented in the Catechism clearly rejects it. The entire disucssion there is clearly monogynic. That is in fact the constant and Traditional teaching of the Church and it has never been questioned in that Tradition, nor is any other position supported by Scripture, or the Magisterium. And we must adhere to this teaching authority.

As to the doctrinal value of the Catechism I point to the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, found on pg 5 of Catechism of the Catholic Church which says in part, " …The Catechism of the Catholic Church…is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Matisterium. I ( John Paul II ) declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate insturment for ecclesial communion…"

As to whether any point in this " deposit of the faith " is open to discussion or reformable is not a question that can legitimately be discussed in a public forum such as this and certainly no individual Catholic, on his own authority, can be morally justified in discarding any content of the Catechism.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Linus, are you suggesting that something magical like Original Sin needs to be passed from generation to generation through heredity? Why couldn’t God simply “will” it to spread throughout humanity? If you’re going to postulate magic from the outset, you may as well follow through with it.

 

[catholictiger]

Whether or not this constitutes a Dogmatic Statement misses the point.

It is actually the entire point, if this isn’t a dogmatic statement than Catholics are not obligated to believe it. As I have said previously the Church speaks to us in 4 primary ways 3 of which are infallible one of which is non-infallible

1. Ordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) All bishops speaking in agreement on one matter.
2. Extraordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) when a ecumenical council makes statements and says the definitively. (usually anathema goes with these statements)
3. Ordinary Papal Magisterium (no protection of infallibility) any time the pope says anything on faith and morals, this includes encyclicals, audiences, exhortations, etc. In these statements a Catholic is only required religious submission of mind and wil…
4. Extraordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) when the Pope speaks excathedra and many other requirements.

The Pope’s encyclical is under #3 so what he says isn’t necessarily infallible meaning Catholics are not bound morally to his statement how Catholics are bound to #1 #2 and #4.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

The above is my source for trying to explain these things (the profession of faith that happens when new professors begin at a Catholic University (I hope anyway) so it is completely Catholic)

the Pope must CLEARLY state that the universal magisterium teaches this for it to be under the second paraphraph. (I don’t know how this is supposed to be phrased but I don’t think he wants to leave these statements up to interpretation, note Benedict and JPII had many times they did this, which would elevate a doctrine to infallibility)

If he doesn’t than Catholics must adhere to religious submission of will and intellect, now I would obviously strongly disagree with anyone who would disagree with the Pope but their relationship with the Church is NOT affected if they disagree with a statement that wasn’t made definitively and sometimes this is ok because there have been statements that Popes have made that have been in error and theologians have corrected them.

I would say that Catholics must follow the Pope’s teaching with religious submission of mind and will, those who try to push polygenism put themselves at great danger and are dissenting with church teaching, but their relationship with the Church will remain in tact.

 

[catholictiger]

greetings I must close off my role in this discussion I’m leaving for DC tomorrow for the MFL. Please pray for all of those going to DC and pray for the conversion of hearts in this Country that one day abortion will be no more.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is actually the entire point, if this isn’t a dogmatic statement than Catholics are not obligated to believe it. As I have said previously the Church speaks to us in 4 primary ways 3 of which are infallible one of which is non-infallible

1. Ordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) All bishops speaking in agreement on one matter.
2. Extraordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) when a ecumenical council makes statements and says the definitively. (usually anathema goes with these statements)
3. Ordinary Papal Magisterium (no protection of infallibility) any time the pope says anything on faith and morals, this includes encyclicals, audiences, exhortations, etc. In these statements a Catholic is only required religious submission of mind and wil…
4. Extraordinary Universal Magisterium (infallible) when the Pope speaks excathedra and many other requirements.

The Pope’s encyclical is under #3 so what he says isn’t necessarily infallible meaning Catholics are not bound morally to his statement how Catholics are bound to #1 #2 and #4.

The above is my source for trying to explain these things (the profession of faith that happens when new professors begin at a Catholic University (I hope anyway) so it is completely Catholic)

the Pope must CLEARLY state that the universal magisterium teaches this for it to be under the second paraphraph. (I don’t know how this is supposed to be phrased but I don’t think he wants to leave these statements up to interpretation, note Benedict and JPII had many times they did this, which would elevate a doctrine to infallibility)

If he doesn’t than Catholics must adhere to religious submission of will and intellect, now I would obviously strongly disagree with anyone who would disagree with the Pope but their relationship with the Church is NOT affected if they disagree with a statement that wasn’t made definitively and sometimes this is ok because there have been statements that Popes have made that have been in error and theologians have corrected them.

I would say that Catholics must follow the Pope’s teaching with religious submission of mind and will, those who try to push polygenism put themselves at great danger and are dissenting with church teaching, but their relationship with the Church will remain in tact.

I agree with everythng except the last paragraph. " Religious submission of mind and will " does not free us to disagree with the Church or to believe and/or adhere to a contrary doctrine. To do so would clearly be a grave sin ( mortal ).

Have a safe trip.

Linus2nd

 

[Contarini]

Linus, are you suggesting that something magical like Original Sin needs to be passed from generation to generation through heredity? Why couldn’t God simply “will” it to spread throughout humanity? If you’re going to postulate magic from the outset, you may as well follow through with it.

You don’t get to define Catholic belief. Why not let those who believe in original sin and/or “magic” tell you what it means, instead of trying to tell them?

If by magic you mean (as you appear to do) a purely arbitrary set of events arising from the will of a supernatural being (not what I would mean by it), then that’s not what original sin is in the first place. As anyone would have told you if you had bothered to ask.

Edwin

 

[Oreoracle]

You don’t get to define Catholic belief. Why not let those who believe in original sin and/or “magic” tell you what it means, instead of trying to tell them?

That’s why I asked the question.

If by magic you mean (as you appear to do) a purely arbitrary set of events arising from the will of a supernatural being (not what I would mean by it), then that’s not what original sin is in the first place. As anyone would have told you if you had bothered to ask.

No, “magical” doesn’t mean “purely arbitrary”. It means that the entity has no naturalistic explanation. Since Original Sin transcends the natural world, why should it need to be passed to our descendants through naturalistic processes? It’s a fair question.

 

[Contarini]

That’s why I asked the question.

No, “magical” doesn’t mean “purely arbitrary”. It means that the entity has no naturalistic explanation. Since Original Sin transcends the natural world, why should it need to be passed to our descendants through naturalistic processes? It’s a fair question.

Sorry for my overly defensive response.

I don’t know if the process by which original sin is passed on is “naturalistic”–I’d tend to think not purely so (but then I’m not sure anything is purely so), but I don’t think it’s by a direct act of God. I don’t think God’s direct acts cause sin. So there is something about the way humanity transmits itself that involves the transmission of sin. Whether that’s “naturalistic” or rather follows spiritual laws not directly open to scientific analysis, or whether in fact the dichotomy is a false one–that’s all open to debate, I think.

Edwin

 

[joe371]

Ok, so I really respect Father Robert Baron, but I came across this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

at the 6 minute mark

And to say I was shocked was an understatement.

Can anyone provide some insight here? Doesn’t this fly in the face of original sin? I am sooooooo confused.

I saw that too. However, one thing that is certain: Father Barron adheres to the teachings of the Catholic Church Magisterium. Regarding that video it is easy to take it out of context, or to be unsure of his true intentions of Adam and Eve (first man and woman). However, you can clearly see here (vid below) that Father Barron views Adam (first man) David, and our Savior Jesus in the very same way i.e. literal people who walked the earth. Here is the video:

Details of vid - “Adam had a kingly mission. However, he became a bad king. David was meant to restore kingship to its proper form. However, he failed too. But Christ, the Lord, is the King who sets everything aright and restores creation. His kingdom rivals all others.”

wordonfire.org/resources/homily/adam-david-and-jesus/948/

 

[grannymh]

That’s why I asked the question.

No, “magical” doesn’t mean “purely arbitrary”. It means that the entity has no naturalistic explanation. Since Original Sin transcends the natural world, why should it need to be passed to our descendants through naturalistic processes? It’s a fair question.

Hi Oreoracle,

Sorry. Father Barron is beyond me.

You do have a fair question. However, the idea that Original Sin transcends the natural world does sound a bit odd to this cranky granny. This is because the Catholic teaching is that it is the Contracted State of Original Sin which is what our nature receives via natural procreation going back to Adam and Eve.

On the other hand, the idea of something which transcends the natural world is on target because human nature per se is an unique unification of both the natural world and the spiritual world.

Now, I am not insisting that you believe the Catholic story of Original Sin. Instead, I am simply hoping that you can understand the foundation for the story of Original Sin and then proceed from that point. Personally, I consider Genesis 1: 26-27 as the most reasonable foundation. We need to begin with the idea that humans are in the image of God because we have a spiritual principle, that is, a rational immortal soul. Adam, who is a real human in the image of God, has the ability to communicate with his Creator.

Obviously, God communicated with Adam in Genesis 2: 15-17. God was very clear that the roles of Creator and creature were not interchangeable. If Adam were going to remain in God’s friendship, he would have to choose to live in submission (be obedient) to his Creator. The sign of Adam’s obedience is that he chooses not to eat from a forbidden tree. What is important about Adam at this point is that he is created in the Friendship State of Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace. Adam’s original State of Holiness/Sanctifying Grace describes the State of Adam’s human nature.

The importance of Adam, as the first being with a fully-complete human nature, is that in Adam is all humanity “as one body of one man.” This translates to the fact that Adam, with his spouse Eve, would transmit their original State of Sanctifying Grace aka Original Holiness to all their descendants via human’s natural method of propagation. Because of Adam’s disobedience, his original state of friendship with his Creator was destroyed. We, as Adam’s descendants, receive his human nature thus deprived of Original Holiness. This deprivation is called the State of Original Sin. Baptism, by giving us the life of Christ’s grace removes the State of Original Sin by giving us the State of Sanctifying Grace aka Original Holiness aka restored friendship with our Creator in which God gives us a share in His life.

Here is the short answer to your question. Human nature per se is an unique unification of both the natural world and the spiritual world. This does not mean that humans have two distinct natures united. Rather, the *union *of the two natures forms a single nature. It is the material anatomy which procreates the continuation of the human species. It is God Who creates the spiritual principle (intellective soul) at conception. The union of soul and body, which results in one whole person, does not exclude the State of Original Sin because the first parent of humankind is a whole person capable of transmitting the state of his nature. As persons, both spiritual and material, Adam and his spouse Eve could transmit their state of their human nature. The nitty-gritty of this transmission is still a mystery. Yet, not knowing this mystery in depth is not a reason for denying Divine Revelation as contained in Catholic teachings.

 

[catholictiger]

why did you bump this old thread?