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

[FishyPete]

Still, i am troubled by Father Barron’s comments on this, because I held him in such high regard… and now I think less of him.

Simply because he had opportunity to clarify his remarks, but never did.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Again, the name may not be important, but there had to be the following:

1. Original man (one man) - Our first ancestor
2. Original woman (one woman) - Our first ancestor
3. They commited an original sin
4. We therefore, logically inherit it.

Now when they enter into history is not important and depends on how you read the “six days”, what is important is that they actually existed, were loved by God, and turned their back on God.

Am I right?

Yes you are right.

See my later post, where I say that their names could (I’m not sure) be up for debate. Would it be implausible, though, for the first man to have the name “man”?

PS. I know that Scriptural Hebrew had no vowels. But does that mean we have to call Moses “Mss”, or David “Dvd”, or Malachi “Mlch”? Of course not!

I happen to like dvd and mlch lol. I get what you are saying. Whatever their names were, it really does not matter.

Individual Bishops were never believed to be infallible. Only an ecumenical council of them, or the Pope, are.

That is for another thread lol

 

[aidanbradypop]

Still, i am troubled by Father Barron’s comments on this, because I held him in such high regard… and now I think less of him.

Don’t think less of him. I love to hear him talk and I am Episcopalian lol. We are all prone to a mess up here and there.

 

[FishyPete]

Don’t think less of him. I love to hear him talk and I am Episcopalian lol. We are all prone to a mess up here and there.

True…

But if anyone knows Father Barron’s true stance on this, i.e. the literal Adam (no matter his name or when he lived), please chime in!

 

[DanAl]

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.

Barron is clearly mistaken if he means that Adam is not a historical figure. Adam is explicitly referred to in the genealogies of the bible and It is part of the catholic doctrine that we all inherited original sin through the man that we call Adam.

I apologize if this sounds harsh but I have corresponded with Barron in the past and I found his answers to my questions and arguments deeply disappointing. A look of his philosophy/theology gives the impression that he’s not really in touch with classic scholasticism but a modern, watered-down form of Thomism, his talk of Adam as an allegory might be a symptom of that. I am not the only one that feels that way, though:

lyfaber.blogspot.com/search?q=barron

If you want a really good classical Thomist you might want to check Edward Feser. This is a good article by Feser about Adam and original sin in the face of modern biology:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html#more

Hope that helps.

 

[aidanbradypop]

True…

But if anyone knows Father Barron’s true stance on this, i.e. the literal Adam (no matter his name or when he lived), please chime in!

From listening to him speak for a few years…I believe, and I hate to speak for him, that he was simply saying that the story may not have gone down the way it tells us but I am completely sure he believes there were two people that brought sin in the world. Name, time, place…etc is all up for debate but the fact still remains the same.

 

[FishyPete]

Barron is clearly mistaken if he means that Adam is not a historical figure. Adam is explicitly referred to in the genealogies of the bible and It is part of the catholic doctrine that we all inherited original sin through the man that we call Adam.

I apologize if this sounds harsh but I have corresponded with Barron in the past and I found his answers to my questions and arguments deeply disappointing. A look of his philosophy/theology gives the impression that he’s not really in touch with classic scholasticism but a modern, watered-down form of Thomism, his talk of Adam as an allegory might be a symptom of that. I am not the only one that feels that way, though:

lyfaber.blogspot.com/search?q=barron

If you want a really good classical Thomist you might want to check Edward Feser. This is a good article by Feser about Adam and original sin in the face of modern biology:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html#more

Hope that helps.

It does. Thanks.

 

[FishyPete]

From listening to him speak for a few years…I believe, and I hate to speak for him, that he was simply saying that the story may not have gone down the way it tells us but I am completely sure he believes there were two people that brought sin in the world. Name, time, place…etc is all up for debate but the fact still remains the same.

I think you may be quite right.

 

[Cruciferi]

Fr. Barron, like most priests who are popular, begin talking about subjects they have no authority on. Also, it’s his opinion that Genesis is symbolic and metaphorical. He’s definitely watering down most of the story of creation; however, that’s his opinion.

I almost never ask religious persons what their interpretation is on any ambiguous subject because they all answer the same: “I wouldn’t take that literal” or “He meant that symbolically”. At the end of the day, listen to people debate senseless questions if you want. Or you could take what the Bible says at face value and choose to believe it or not.

I’ve made up my mind about creation and almost nobody agrees with me. Nevertheless, I don’t care because it’s my opinion alone.

In conclusion, if nothing else, everyone should agree we came from two parents. If you can’t agree on that…well you’re in a fix.

 

[FishyPete]

In conclusion, if nothing else, everyone should agree we came from two parents. If you can’t agree on that…well you’re in a fix.

I do agree.

I wish Father Barron, who i think agrees too, would be clear.

He has quite a reach in the world.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t get it. What’s going on with Father Barron, who I admire so much???

While well learned and vocationally dedicated, he is still fallible like the rest of us

 

[alexandratm]

From listening to him speak for a few years…I believe, and I hate to speak for him, that he was simply saying that the story may not have gone down the way it tells us but I am completely sure he believes there were two people that brought sin in the world. Name, time, place…etc is all up for debate but the fact still remains the same.

The the impression I have of it as well. Because these stories trace back so far, the details may be nebulous or incorrect, but the underlying facts are true. Were the first two truly named Adam and Eve? Perhaps, and perhaps not, just as naming each animal and creation in six days is probably not exact either. But the underlying truth of Genesis is still there, even if you aren’t reading it literally.

Like you, I can’t speak for him or what he thinks. But that was the impression I’ve gotten from his talk. It made sense to me, as many cultures have creation myths. It makes sense that the many retellings may muddy the facts, but that an underlying truth remains.

 

[JPUSC]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

 

[edward_george]

Fr. Barron, like most priests who are popular, begin talking about subjects they have no authority on.

I should point out to you that Fr. Barron probably is a fairly decent authority on matters theological:

Father Robert Barron discovered St. Thomas Aquinas, the medieval philosopher and theologian, when he was a freshman in high school.

My interest in the priesthood was awakened one spring day in 1974 at Fenwick High School outside of Chicago. A young Dominican friar presented Thomas Aquinas’ argument from motion for God’s existence to my freshman religion class. I’m not quite sure why this should have been the case, but that lecture lit a fire in me. I became convinced of the reality of God in a way that I hadn’t been before, and I wanted to learn more and more about philosophy and theology.[4]

He transferred to Benet Academy and graduated from that high school in 1978.[5] He was ordained in May 1986.

M.A., Catholic University of America, (Philosophy) summa cum laude
Thesis: “Production and the Political Animal in the Writings of Karl Marx”
Advisor: Daniel Dahlstrom

S.T.L, University of St. Mary of the Lake, (1986) summa cum laude
Thesis: “A Consideration of the Two Natures Doctrine of Chalcedon in Light of the Essence-Existence Metaphysics of Aquinas”
Advisor: John Shea

S.T.D., Institut Catholique de Paris, (1992) très honorable
Dissertation: Creation as Discipleship: A Study of the De potentia of Thomas Aquinas in Light of the Dogmatik of Paul Tillich (published by the Edwin Mellen Press in 1993)
Advisor: Michel Corbin

In addition to his native English, Fr. Robert also is fluent in French, Spanish, German and Latin.

I should also mention that he currently serves as a seminary rector, so clearly the Bishops of the Church think that he is a good enough authority on such things so as to form future priests for the Church.

I find it very interesting that people are so willing to slam priests and bishops based on just a few words taken out of context or one little phrase that’s difficult for some to understand. As soon as one little problem arises in understanding, everyone leaps to the default position of heresy hunting and accusation without actually trying to understand things. I hope that people on here, everyone, will please be very careful about throwing around accusations and slander, as this could cause more confusion and discord than simple misunderstandings to begin with. Bear in mind a couple of points, first from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

And the book of Exodus:

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 20:16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[AnneTeresa]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

Yes. ^

And if so, then the argument against homosexuality being wrong because God created one man and one woman to be together falls flat too. I have wondered about this as well since I heard that is it OK to believe the Adam/Eve story or evolution(i.e, the church accepts either view). It makes a large part of our faith seem like a house of cards that could topple.

 

[aidanbradypop]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

I would have to disagree here. We know that sin came about because we have Christ. If sin did not come then neither would have Christ.

 

[Contarini]

His Catholicism dvd was very good but too often he needs clarification. There are other Catholic evangelist/speakers out there that you don’t have to find out what they really mean or filter at all so I don’t listen to Fr. Barron any more.

I guess a lot of folks don’t really want apologists who make them think.

Which to my mind just confirms the corrupt nature of most apologetics.

Fr. Barron is a serious theologian, not just an apologist. That’s why he’s one of the best apologists out there. If you want to be spoon-fed, no one can stop you, I suppose. But you’re doing yourself and those whom you may influence no favors.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

I don’t follow the logic here. Fr. Barron says very clearly that the story is theologically true. Original sin is a theological claim. You don’t actually show how Fr. Barron’s statement poses a problem for original sin. (And the fact that Richard Dawkins thinks it does is not, in my opinion, a point in your favor)

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

You seem to be assuming that “myth” is something trivial or unreal.

The apparent contradiction with Humani Generis is something I wish Fr. Barron would speak to. The infallibility of papal encyclicals, if I’m not mistaken, can’t simply be taken for granted. It seems pretty clear to me that papal encyclicals in the past have sometimes said things that turned out to be wrong, or condemned propositions that turned out to be true. I recognize that many folks on this forum put a lot of effort into showing that this isn’t the case (see rinnie’s recent thread on Exsurge Domine and the burning of heretics, for instance), but even if these efforts are valid, a similar effort could probably bring Fr. Barron’s statement into line with Humani Generis.

Still, in the absence of clear indications that the Church is willing to back away from some of what Pius XII said in Humani Generis, and in the absence of an explanation showing how Fr. Barron’s statement agrees with HG, I can see why folks would be reluctant to follow Fr. Barron on this point.

Edwin

 

[LegoGE1947]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

I understand that Adam & Eve said that Father Barron was a figurative figure instead of literal. But then I could be mistaken about that!

 

[FishyPete]

I don’t follow the logic here. Fr. Barron says very clearly that the story is theologically true. Original sin is a theological claim. You don’t actually show how Fr. Barron’s statement poses a problem for original sin. (And the fact that Richard Dawkins thinks it does is not, in my opinion, a point in your favor)

You seem to be assuming that “myth” is something trivial or unreal.

The apparent contradiction with Humani Generis is something I wish Fr. Barron would speak to. The infallibility of papal encyclicals, if I’m not mistaken, can’t simply be taken for granted. It seems pretty clear to me that papal encyclicals in the past have sometimes said things that turned out to be wrong, or condemned propositions that turned out to be true. I recognize that many folks on this forum put a lot of effort into showing that this isn’t the case (see rinnie’s recent thread on Exsurge Domine and the burning of heretics, for instance), but even if these efforts are valid, a similar effort could probably bring Fr. Barron’s statement into line with Humani Generis.

Still, in the absence of clear indications that the Church is willing to back away from some of what Pius XII said in Humani Generis, and in the absence of an explanation showing how Fr. Barron’s statement agrees with HG, I can see why folks would be reluctant to follow Fr. Barron on this point.

Edwin

I respect Father Barron. I enjoy his writing and videos very much.

That is why this video upset me so much:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

If you haven’t seen it. Watch it and tell me what you think.

I am a simple Catholic man, who understands simple things, therefore I ask in a forum what Father Barron might have meant or if they know if he ever clarified his position.