How can Original sin be explained without Adam and Eve?

[Alpine_Meadow]

I’m confused when a Catholic says that Adam and Eve did not exist. How do they explain Original sin?

Then, if Original sin is “explained away”, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die on the cross?

I was taught in RCIA to always turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find the “official teaching” of the Church.

The Catechism says the following about Original sin:

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Why do some Catholics not accept this official Church teaching? I’m confused.

Blessings,
AM

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I’m confused when a Catholic says that Adam and Eve did not exist. How do they explain Original sin?

Then, if Original sin is “explained away”, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die on the cross?

I was taught in RCIA to always turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find the “official teaching” of the Church.

The Catechism says the following about Original sin:

Why do some Catholics not accept this official Church teaching? I’m confused.

Blessings,
AM

What the Church says is that at some point in human history some humans chose to deliberately turn away from God and toward sin. Individual Catholics are free to understand Genesis as literal truth, or as an allegorical account.

Peace,

 

[Alpine_Meadow]

What the Church says is that at some point in human history some humans chose to deliberately turn away from God and toward sin. Individual Catholics are free to understand Genesis as literal truth, or as an allegorical account.

Peace,

Doesn’t the Church say what it “says” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Where does it say "that at some point in human history some humans chose to deliberately turn away from God and toward sin. Individual Catholics are free to understand Genesis as literal truth, or as an allegorical account.

What is does say is that, “We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.”

That’s pretty straight forward language in my book.

Blessings,
AM

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Doesn’t the Church say what it “says” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Where does it say "that at some point in human history some humans chose to deliberately turn away from God and toward sin. Individual Catholics are free to understand Genesis as literal truth, or as an allegorical account.

What is does say is that, “We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.”

That’s pretty straight forward language in my book.

Blessings,
AM

You seem confused about Catholic teaching, or popular Catholic belief, with regard to whether Genesis represents literal history. I tried to explain what the Church’s position is on that point. If you already “knew” the answer before you asked, then why did you ask?

Peace,

 

[Alpine_Meadow]

You seem confused about Catholic teaching, or popular Catholic belief, with regard to whether Genesis represents literal history. I tried to explain what the Church’s position is on that point. If you already “knew” the answer before you asked, then why did you ask?

Peace,

Is the Catechism confused about Genesis representing literal history when it says:

“We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.”

Thanks for posting.

Blessings,
AM

 

[Legal_Eagle]

With respect, you are misinterpreting what you read in the Catechism. Fortunately, you have landed in a website that contains excellent apologetics recourses. Read these articles for the “long version.”

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

The “short version” is that we as Catholics are required to believe in the special creation of the human soul, and that humanity rejected of God’s original plan for us in favor of sin. We are not required to believe that Genesis recounts literal history wherein a snake talked a woman into eating a piece of fruit, and then she talked her husband into eating some too.

HOWEVER…you are free to take the Genesis story to be literally true if you wish.

Peace,

 

[fhansen]

With respect, you are misinterpreting what you read in the Catechism. Fortunately, you have landed in a website that contains excellent apologetics recourses. Read these articles for the “long version.”

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

The “short version” is that we as Catholics are required to believe in the special creation of the human soul, and that humanity rejected of God’s original plan for us in favor of sin. We are not required to believe that Genesis recounts literal history wherein a snake talked a woman into eating a piece of fruit, and then she talked her husband into eating some too.

HOWEVER…you are free to take the Genesis story to be literally true if you wish.

Peace,

But according to the Catechism, there were a literal first pair of human parents from whom we’re all descended who literally committed the first act of disobedience of God, and this explains all sin or moral evil that followed. Any figurative language served only to support those basic, literal, truths.

 

[cerad2]

This part seems to be unnecessarily vague though I may be taking it out of context:

that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Why couldn’t it specify how many first parents we actually had? 2 like the Adam/Eve scenario seems to suggest? Or perhaps 10 thousand or so which genetics suggest were around following the super volcano eruption which occurred roughly 75K years ago?

Two people could certainly decide to deliberately turn away from God. Little bit more difficult to sell the notion that 10 thousand folks all decided to do the same thing.

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

I just posted this in another thread that is very relevant for this thread. And so I wish to share it in this thread as well.

The CCC says that the Old Testament uses figurative language, however the CCC continually refers to Adam and Eve as our first parents, this meant in a literal sense.

As to whether or not they are real people, here’s some dogmas of the Church. These are taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

The First Man was created by God. [De Fide]
Our first parents, before teh Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. [DE FIDE]
Our first parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. [DE FIDE]
Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. [DE FIDE]
Our First parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. [DE FIDE]
Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. [DE FIDE]

DE FIDE doctrines or dogmas if you will are wrote of in the beginning of this book.

The highest degree of certainity appertains to the immediatley revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing [fides divina], and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church [fides catholica]. If Truths are defined by a solemn judgement of faith [definition] of the Pope or of a Gernal Council, they are “de fide definita.”

Church Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church have always taught that Adam and Eve our our first parents and that they existed. There is so much writing out there in support of this.

---

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

What the Church says is that at some point in human history some humans chose to deliberately turn away from God and toward sin. Individual Catholics are free to understand Genesis as literal truth, or as an allegorical account.

Peace,

The Church is very clear about Adam and Eve as being real people and being our first parents. Figurative langauge may be employed when explaning about man’s first sin, but the sin itself was clearly an act of disobedience. The ones who disobeyed and passed on Orginal sin were obviously our first parents. Our first parents who the Church has always referred to as Adam and Eve. The Fathers of the Church continually speak of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve.

Easter is the highest liturgical celebration of the Church, together with Christmas. In the Easter Proclamation it states “O Happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam which gained for us so great a Redeemer.”, why would the Church be saying this in her highest liturgical celebation if Adam was not real? Don’t you think it would read “O Happy fault, O necessary sin of man which gained for us so great a Redeemer.”? Yet throughout the Church’s long history, saints, Church fathers, the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition have been clear to as who the first parents were, namely Adam and Eve.

God bless.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

But according to the Catechism, there were a literal first pair of human parents from whom we’re all descended who literally committed the first act of disobedience of God, and this explains all sin or moral evil that followed. Any figurative language served only to support those basic, literal, truths.

I believe what the Catechism is trying to say is that there was at some point in our history a single pair humans from whom we all are decended. However, we are not obliged to take the Genesis account as a literal history. Here’s a link to a short talk by a priest. I very much like his point of view.

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

Also, I seem to remember a magazine article from about 10 years ago stating that geneticists had traced human mitochondrial (sp?) DNA to a single female who lived about 200k years ago. Google “mitochondrial eve” and see what pops up.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Figurative langauge may be employed when explaning about man’s first sin, but the sin itself was clearly an act of disobedience. The ones who disobeyed and passed on Orginal sin were obviously our first parents. Our first parents who the Church has always referred to as Adam and Eve. The Fathers of the Church continually speak of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve.

Sin entered the world because of humanity’s disobedience. Correct. We have historically refered to our first parents as “Adam and Eve.” Also, correct. However, see my post just above.

Peace,

 

[Little_One0307]

With respect, you are misinterpreting what you read in the Catechism. Fortunately, you have landed in a website that contains excellent apologetics recourses. Read these articles for the “long version.”

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

The “short version” is that we as Catholics are required to believe in the special creation of the human soul, and that humanity rejected of God’s original plan for us in favor of sin. We are not required to believe that Genesis recounts literal history wherein a snake talked a woman into eating a piece of fruit, and then she talked her husband into eating some too.

HOWEVER…you are free to take the Genesis story to be literally true if you wish.

Peace,

Hi,

You still have not answered to as why the Catechism of the Catholic Church continously refers to Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve did not exist, why would the CCC continually refer to them?

God bless.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

But according to the Catechism, there were a literal first pair of human parents from whom we’re all descended who literally committed the first act of disobedience of God, and this explains all sin or moral evil that followed. Any figurative language served only to support those basic, literal, truths.

What is it that you’re trying to say the Church is teaching? If you’re saying that the Church is teaching that it is certain that the garden story with a talking snake and all that is literal, then you’re ignoring the part of the Catechism, from you’re quote, that says “390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264”

If you’re just saying original sin came through the actions of our first parents, no one is disagreeing with you. If you are also saying that God is the ultimate source of the universe and everything in it, and the creator of everything and particularly the creator of the human soul, we are also not disagreeing with you.

To be honest, I can’t figure out why people keep bringing this up. It’s really just not that important. We are free to hold either view, so long as we don’t dismiss the nature of original sin etc, because neither the literal nor the figurative view teach us any religious truth that the other does not.

Whatever happened happened with the same results and in the same way as if the genesis story were literal. Other than that, it does not matter. Keep in mind that, according to Pope Pius XII, “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Humani Generis 36, via catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp).

 

[Little_One0307]

But according to the Catechism, there were a literal first pair of human parents from whom we’re all descended who literally committed the first act of disobedience of God, and this explains all sin or moral evil that followed. Any figurative language served only to support those basic, literal, truths.

+1 Good for you.

 

[Little_One0307]

But according to the Catechism, there were a literal first pair of human parents from whom we’re all descended who literally committed the first act of disobedience of God, and this explains all sin or moral evil that followed. Any figurative language served only to support those basic, literal, truths.

+1 Good for you.

Too much confusion in the modern Church regarding the use of literary forms in Holy Scripture.

God bless.

 

[fhansen]

What is it that you’re trying to say the Church is teaching? If you’re saying that the Church is teaching that it is certain that the garden story with a talking snake and all that is literal, then you’re ignoring the part of the Catechism, from you’re quote, that says “390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264”

I mentioned nothing about snakes or trees or evolution-I mentioned only the event, the deed, and those who committed it.

If you’re just saying original sin came through the actions of our first parents, no one is disagreeing with you.

This is what wasn’t clear.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If Adam and Eve did not exist, why would the CCC continually refer to them?

God bless.

Because it’s easier than saying “those people who participated in the event which may or may not be literally identical to the passage in genesis.”

 

[Little_One0307]

I believe what the Catechism is trying to say is that there was at some point in our history a single pair humans from whom we all are decended. However, we are not obliged to take the Genesis account as a literal history. Here’s a link to a short talk by a priest. I very much like his point of view.

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

Also, I seem to remember a magazine article from about 10 years ago stating that geneticists had traced human mitochondrial (sp?) DNA to a single female who lived about 200k years ago. Google “mitochondrial eve” and see what pops up.

Hi,

I can’t pull up youtube on my computer because it is dial up. Do you mind giving me the name of the priest and the essence of his message? I would greatly appreciate it as it will allow me to continue to discuss in in light of your recommended source.

God bless.

 

[fhansen]

Because it’s easier than saying “those people who participated in the event which may or may not be literally identical to the passage in genesis.”

I doubt if many really care if the names were literally correct-only that these parents of all living humans existed-and sinned.