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

[Linusthe2nd]

I think one of the problems some Catholics have is that they do not understand that the Church is our first sourse in interpreting Scripture or Tradition. And once the Chruch has spoken, as on this topic, and as reiterated in the Catechism, we are not free to interet Scripture on those points.

The Catechism teaches many things about Original Sin and about our first parents. We are not free to read Scripture differently than the Church has already done.

Linus2nd .

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Catechism teaches many things about Original Sin and about our first parents. We are not free to read Scripture differently than the Church has already done.

So true.

The Church produced the Scriptures, so only the Church can interpret them with authority.

As Peter says commenting on Paul’s epistles:

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3

 

[clem456]

I think one of the problems some Catholics have is that they do not understand that the Church is our first sourse in interpreting Scripture or Tradition. And once the Chruch has spoken, as on this topic, and as reiterated in the Catechism, we are not free to interet Scripture on those points.

The Catechism teaches many things about Original Sin and about our first parents. We are not free to read Scripture differently than the Church has already done.

Linus2nd .

So true. “Free to read” means reading with the Church, not according to our own understanding which may or may not be full of wisdom. I can read the words on the page of a physics book just fine, but I have limited wisdom in regards to the truth contained therein.

Reading outside the Church runs many ways, from limiting Scripture to fundamentalist or literalist human understanding, to interpreting it in a purely spiritual way, denying the physical realities that God created. Good reading requires the balance the Church talks about.
Is why it is a good idea for those interested in knowing how the Church interprets to first read what the Magisterium says.

 

[UppityAnn]

I am speaking just for myself here and make no pretensions to having theological truth.

To me it really doesn’t matter if there was a literal Adam and Eve or if this story is an allegory. No human alive was around when the story was first written…let alone when it could have happened.

What I DO know is that there is Original Sin in me and in every human I personally know or know actually existed in history. Except for Jesus. Jesus must have really existed because no person (or collection of people) in my judgment could have been smart enough and pure enough to dream up such a person.

I think the two biggest problems with reading the Bible are: 1) mistaking allegory for fact and 2) mistaking fact for allegory. To me one of the more important statements the Gospels make about Jesus is that he came “in the fullness of time.” I interpret that as meaning that he came when people were mature enough to be able to write HISTORY as we moderns know it: i.e. a recitation of actual facts not embellished with fantasy.

Still Jesus did use much allegory in his teaching…it’s just that we can understand that he was using allegory. The resurrection is no allegory though, that is a fact. It is over and over stated as a fact and there are hundreds of resulting facts which could never have happened if the central fact of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus had not been really REAL.

Which takes us back to Original Sin and Adam and Eve. Something happened somewhere, somehow, to someone(s) to make it necessary for God to actually have to come to earth in human form to begin to redress the tide of evil flowing through the human race.

Adam and Eve are not my problem; I am my problem. In the story of Adam and Eve I see myself making the same bad choices as they did; and not just once but over and over time and again. They may be real, “historical” characters (who created a DNA gene of sinning) or they may be “allegorical” characters personifying a psychological truth about the human species. Whatever THEY are THEY ARE **ME **

That is all I know about the matter and all I need to know to drive me constantly to the Throne of Grace in love and supplication. I can’t prove who gave it to me or how I got the Original Sin in me. All I know is that I have it and only Christ Jesus can cure it.

 

[Gorgias]

Call them Man and Woman then or Bob and Jane for all I care. Cheers

Hang on a second, Linus – don’t roll your eyes at me, just yet!

You see… you’re there already! You get it. When we say “Adam and Eve are allegorical figures”, we aren’t saying “there wasn’t a first man and first woman”, and we aren’t saying “original sin is just a nice story” – we’re only saying that the characters themselves are allegorical. Call them what you will – the Scriptures call them simply ‘the man of the red earth’ and ‘the mother of all’ – they are allegorical, and they stand for our first parents. They were created by God, and they sinned, and we have inherited their sin.

Now, having said that, we’re finally (after 11 pages?!?) ready to answer the OP’s question! Does Fr Barron say that Adam is a “figurative figure”? No… actually, he just claims that “Adam wasn’t a literal figure”. Now – do you see him, in this video, actually saying anything more than I’ve just claimed here? Does he make any sort of claim that’s been bandied about in this thread (that there were no first couple, that this is just a nice story, etc, etc)? He does not. I would assert that he’s only alluding to the same claim that I’m making here – that is, the same claim that you’ve already conceded: “call them what you want”.

The only assertion, then, that seems to be worth debating was the literal one that you claimed: was the first man literally a man named ‘Adam’ and was the first woman a literal woman named ‘Eve’? I’ve already demonstrated that the ‘Eve’ claim falls apart in the Septuagint. You can point to instances of the use of the names anywhere you want; but you need to explain why the Septuagint calls Eve ‘Zoe’, if her literal name must be ‘Eve’. If you can’t do that, then you cannot hold to the claim that these were the pair’s literal names, even if every reference to them in the Church utilizes the same allegory that Scripture does.

 

[catholictiger]

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 may be wrong about this but the Church has NOT officially declared that Adam must have existed. I believe it was benedict who said something that get’s misinterpreted. He says something along the lines of there is nothing now that shows that we could have descended from more than two parents and original sin still came. This is a complex topic though

Note: Adam can be both figurative and literal. The Author may have changed his name to make a point but our first father still existed.

 

[clem456]

I think it’s good to remember that the Church does not do natural science. It respects and encourages science, but does not take specific stances concerning it, unless it has something to say about it.
The Church speaks about truth that is larger than science.

 

[catholictiger]

I think it’s good to remember that the Church does not do natural science. It respects and encourages science, but does not take specific stances concerning it, unless it has something to say about it.
The Church speaks about truth that is larger than science.

I would rephrase that

Science studies truth
Theology studies the truth
Philosophy studies the truth

The Church speaks on theological matters, it doesn’t have any authority on Philosophy or Science. They all equally study the truth.

 

[clem456]

I would rephrase that

Science studies truth
Theology studies the truth
Philosophy studies the truth

The Church speaks on theological matters, it doesn’t have any authority on Philosophy or Science. They all equally study the truth.

All search for truth and the Church encourages that and respects competence.
It seems to me the Church has authority to pronounce on anything it is called to pronounce on. It makes pronouncements concerning biology for instance, not on the specifics of the research, but on the morality of it. But the Church respects competence in specific matters of study.
I think a case could still be made that while all these fields search for truth, the competence of the Church is in revealing the ultimate truth, which science should be at the service of. I don’t think the word “equal” expresses the relationship between these fields of study well. When science is not at the service of Truth, we can go off the rails.

 

[catholictiger]

All search for truth and the Church encourages that and respects competence.
It seems to me the Church has authority to pronounce on anything it is called to pronounce on. It makes pronouncements concerning biology for instance, not on the specifics of the research, but on the morality of it. But the Church respects competence in specific matters of study.
I think a case could still be made that while all these fields search for truth, the competence of the Church is in revealing the ultimate truth, which science should be at the service of. I don’t think the word “equal” expresses the relationship between these fields of study well. When science is not at the service of Truth, we can go off the rails.

Read JPII Letter to Vat Observatory he addresses this issue. The Church CAN’T make statements on science and declare this is the truth. Neither can it in philosophy, only Theology and the vast number of sub ologies under that umbrella

 

[clem456]

Read JPII Letter to Vat Observatory he addresses this issue. The Church CAN’T make statements on science and declare this is the truth. Neither can it in philosophy, only Theology and the vast number of sub ologies under that umbrella

Right, we do agree on that.

 

[Aloysium]

I may be wrong about this but the Church has NOT officially declared that Adam must have existed. I believe it was benedict who said something that get’s misinterpreted. He says something along the lines of there is nothing now that shows that we could have descended from more than two parents and original sin still came. This is a complex topic though

Note: Adam can be both figurative and literal. The Author may have changed his name to make a point but our first father still existed.

If you are going to make that claim, you should quote your sources.
CCC:

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.
376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

 

[Aloysium]

Read JPII Letter to Vat Observatory he addresses this issue. The Church CAN’T make statements on science and declare this is the truth. Neither can it in philosophy, only Theology and the vast number of sub ologies under that umbrella

The Church can clearly make statements on reality, revealed truth.
Creation is truth; Adam is truth.
Science may not be able to explain everything, but if some theory, some way of connecting the dots does not coincide with reality, it is invalid.

If someone states that something in science is in conflict with revelation, the case is usually that either
person does not understand the teaching of the church, or
the science is actually wrong. It would be a modern version of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model, which in spite of its complexity, was wrong.

 

[catholictiger]

If you are going to make that claim, you should quote your sources.
CCC:

ok I was wrong but let me make some clarifications sorry for the confussion

I was wrong about benedict in Huami Generis it says this

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

from my understanding of this paragraph it doesn’t say that a Catholic can NEVER hold polygenism, rather currently in this stage of salvation history there is no apparent way that opinion can be reconciled with scripture and tradition. In this future this could change but now it appears polygenism is wrong.

from my understudying of theology, the Church has no definitively stated that monotheism is correct. I think pius XII talked about polygenism in a way to leave up the possibility that sometime in the future the Church may develop in that way. He DIDN’T close the matter, what he said is that it is almost impossible to be Catholic and believe polygenism as things stand currently.

If this is the case than saying that you are dissenting from the Church or you are obligated to believe in monogenism, you may be overstepping your bounds.

note: this is a very good article I just read I have heard good things about the writer of this article so I’m sure he is good

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

I’ll finish with this

The Church has not definitively taught that we have two parents, almost all good orthodox theologians do, I would think most if not all bishops do, but there is no clear evidence of the Church definitively teaching this, so a Catholic can be Catholic and believe in polygenism.

please note I don’t believe at all in polygenism, I’m just saying that Pope Pius left open the possibility that doctrine develops to a point where we can accept polygenism, but in no apparent way can we make this connection now.

 

[catholictiger]

The Church can clearly make statements on reality, revealed truth.
Creation is truth; Adam is truth.
Science may not be able to explain everything, but if some theory, some way of connecting the dots does not coincide with reality, it is invalid.

If someone states that something in science is in conflict with revelation, the case is usually that either
person does not understand the teaching of the church, or
the science is actually wrong. It would be a modern version of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model, which in spite of its complexity, was wrong.

you are correct but theology which studies revelation can’t say anything on science.

 

[JamesTheJust]

from my understanding of this paragraph it doesn’t say that a Catholic can NEVER hold polygenism, rather currently in this stage of salvation history there is no apparent way that opinion can be reconciled with scripture and tradition. In this future this could change but now it appears polygenism is wrong.

No, polygenism is, and always will be, incorrect. This is what the Church teaches.

from my understudying of theology, the Church has no definitively stated that monotheism is correct. I think pius XII talked about polygenism in a way to leave up the possibility that sometime in the future the Church may develop in that way. He DIDN’T close the matter, what he said is that it is almost impossible to be Catholic and believe polygenism as things stand currently.

Surely you mean monogenism! If you did, you’d still be incorrect. Pius XII did close the matter. Period.

The Church has not definitively taught that we have two parents, almost all good orthodox theologians do, I would think most if not all bishops do, but there is no clear evidence of the Church definitively teaching this, so a Catholic can be Catholic and believe in polygenism.

Nope. The quote you provided from Humani Generis disproves this. Doctrine does not change, only develop, but going from condemning a belief to accepting it is not development, it’s change.

 

[catholictiger]

for those interested I think you should check this out in the article.

(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.)

 

[JamesTheJust]

you are correct but theology which studies revelation can’t say anything on science.

I suppose you’re correct, in that the Church does not have the authority to rule on the biology of monogenism. But this does not mean that the Church cannot teach that monogenism is true, which is what she does.

 

[JamesTheJust]

for those interested I think you should check this out in the article.

Hmmm… Mark Shea vs Pope Pius XII, who wins? Obviously, the Pope does.

 

[catholictiger]

No, polygenism is, and always will be, incorrect. This is what the Church teaches.

no I tried to explain that I will do it again but please read the article I posted.

Surely you mean monogenism! If you did, you’d still be incorrect. Pius XII did close the matter. Period.

I said what I meant

let me rephrase to make it clearer, Pope Pius phrased it in such a way to condemn those who teach polytheism but not make it to where it will never be the case.

Pope Pius says that Polygenism isn’t compatible with tradition and scripture, if he finished it there the matter would be closed BUT he gives an escape clause as my article suggests. It is no way apparent makes it sound like it could change in the future.

Nope. The quote you provided from Humani Generis disproves this. Doctrine does not change, only develop, but going from condemning a belief to accepting it is not development, it’s change.

there have been times when a development of doctrine appears like a complete change when it is really not. Vatican I condemned modernism, Vatican II wrote to the modern world. Is Vatican II doing what Vatican I condemned, no doctrine developed. If the living tradition of the Catholic Church develops to a point where it can be shown how polygenism is compatible with original sin than pope pius condemnation will no longer apply.

again please read the article I posted I think it will make it clear.