How could original sin cause physical death?

[Fleeting_Shadow]

Since my reversion about a year ago I’ve come to terms with aspects of the faith that previously troubled me. For example, I see there is no conflict between the reality of biological evolution on the one hand and the scriptural creation narrative properly understood, on the other. I’m even willing to assent (and I never thought I’d say this) to the traditional teaching that the ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ figures refer to the first human beings properly understood (they possessed the imago Dei) and that Genesis 2 is historical, albeit presented in a certain literary form.

But I’ve hit a something of a stumbling block… The teaching that original sin brought death into the world is one I’ve always interpreted as refering solely to spiritual death. But it seems that Church teaching is in fact that there would have been no physical death without original sin! This is flatly contradicted by our knowledge of human biology.

There is definitely an ontological discontinuity between human beings and animals. This is spiritual. But is it not accepted that our material bodies are subject to the same laws as those of our biological ancestors, i.e. death?

I’m a little sheepish asking about this. Maybe I’m interpreting it all far too literalistically - but I don’t think so. The idea is confirmed in the Catholic study Bible I use, in the writings of Augustine, etc.

Could someone please clarify or explain?

 

[1ke]

In original grace, our first parents had preternatural gifts which were withdrawn after the Fall.

 

[Ghosty]

Death is a fact of biology, and our pre-human, pre-spiritual ancestors would have been mortal. The first true, spiritual humans (Adam and Eve) were preserved from this fate by special Grace, which they lost through sin. This is represented by them being barred from the Fruit of Life, the Grace which sustained their immortality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fleeting_Shadow]

Hmm. Ok… But is this to say that our original state of grace was equivalent to (God willing) our future state of resurrection then?

 

[Ghosty]

Hmm. Ok… But is this to say that our original state of grace was equivalent to (God willing) our future state of resurrection then?

Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know enough about either state to say for sure. We do know, however, that those resurrected to Glory will have it much better than Adam and Eve in that they’ll have a direct share in the Divine Nature.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Since my reversion about a year ago I’ve come to terms with aspects of the faith that previously troubled me. For example, I see there is no conflict between the reality of biological evolution on the one hand and the scriptural creation narrative properly understood, on the other. I’m even willing to assent (and I never thought I’d say this) to the traditional teaching that the ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ figures refer to the first human beings properly understood (they possessed the imago Dei) and that Genesis 2 is historical, albeit presented in a certain literary form.

But I’ve hit a something of a stumbling block… The teaching that original sin brought death into the world is one I’ve always interpreted as refering solely to spiritual death. But it seems that Church teaching is in fact that there would have been no physical death without original sin! This is flatly contradicted by our knowledge of human biology.

There is definitely an ontological discontinuity between human beings and animals. This is spiritual. But is it not accepted that our material bodies are subject to the same laws as those of our biological ancestors, i.e. death?

I’m a little sheepish asking about this. Maybe I’m interpreting it all far too literalistically - but I don’t think so. The idea is confirmed in the Catholic study Bible I use, in the writings of Augustine, etc.

Could someone please clarify or explain?

Forget the Adam and Eve and suffering and death.
It was the reverse. God inspired the writers to explain things untold and inexplicable through a midrash, a tale with a morale.

 

[Fleeting_Shadow]

Forget the Adam and Eve and suffering and death.
It was the reverse. God inspired the writers to explain things untold and inexplicable through a midrash, a tale with a morale.

That was exactly my first instinct! I completely understand that allegory and sacred myth have an important place in Scripture and that this in no way demeans either the text or its Authors. Initially, I thought that any departure from this approach to exegesis with respect to Genesis would be fundamentalist and not Catholic. My point is that I was wrong about that.

My question relates to actual Church teaching. This teaching doesn’t seem to be mere fundamentalism but historic orthodox catholic Christianity…

 

[Heuchler]

Well I always took the death described in Genesis to mean spiritual death. This is because God said “on the day you eat that fruit you will surely die.” The devil said they wouldn’t die once they ate the fruit. Now either God was right or the Devil was. I prefer to believe that God referred to how their souls lost the spiritual life that was in them and that the Devil twisted the truth to imply physical death.
So, Adam and Eve were probably mortal before the Fall. However, instead of enduring Death they may have been taken up into Heaven as Enoch was said to have been. Mary also seemed to have been assumed affirming this assumption for Mary was without original sin and hasn’t been living here for all eternity. I think we were always made to be mortal and to have the potential for suffering and death.

 

[Fleeting_Shadow]

Thanks Heuchler. That’s an interesting point about mortality and assumption; something to ponder.

 

[hockeyfan]

Forget the Adam and Eve and suffering and death.
It was the reverse. God inspired the writers to explain things untold and inexplicable through a midrash, a tale with a morale.

You beat me to the punch.

Consider this, the Garden of Eden is symbolic of innocence. We all eat from the Tree of Life, and are ignorant of the facts of life. (death, suffering, exc.) As children, we are all liker that. Then at some point, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. It broke their innocence, and they then noticed their nudity. When we are kids, we all experience this too. We start thinking for ourselves, and stop always doing what we are told because we are told to do it. One could say, a age or reason. It was at that point when God punished Adam and Eve, in the allegory. In our lives, we start to know real problems.

And for any of you who want to take a literal approach to the creation story, consider this. In Chapter 1 of Genesis, the order of creation is day 1) light, day, night 2) dome in the sky, bodies of water, sky 3) dry land, earth, sea, vegetation 4)stars, sun, fixed days/years 5) water animals, birds, 6) land animals and humans after the land animals. Then, move on to Chapter 2, and you get another creation. In order, it starts with a barren Earth (Gen.2:5), and a stream going through it (Gen. 2:6), then God forms man out of clay (Gen. 2:7). But wait, God should be done already according to chap. 1, right? Then in Gen. 2:8, God creates a garden, in 2:9 he creates trees. Are these not opposing stories, if taken literally?

Early Genesis is a story to understand the human condition, not a historical text.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Death is a fact of biology, and our pre-human, pre-spiritual ancestors would have been mortal. The first true, spiritual humans (Adam and Eve) were preserved from this fate by special Grace, which they lost through sin. This is represented by them being barred from the Fruit of Life, the Grace which sustained their immortality.

Peace and God bless!

This answers the question for me - do you have a Scripture-scholarly or other Catholic reference for in-depth study? If so, I’d be very interested. I’m researching for a work of fiction in which this issue is quite relevant. Thanks in advance!

Also, this is just a very interesting thread and though I’m sure the question has been asked on CAF before, this thread is succint and to the point and I like that.

 

[Ghosty]

This answers the question for me - do you have a Scripture-scholarly or other Catholic reference for in-depth study? If so, I’d be very interested. I’m researching for a work of fiction in which this issue is quite relevant. Thanks in advance!

Also, this is just a very interesting thread and though I’m sure the question has been asked on CAF before, this thread is succint and to the point and I like that.

I don’t have a modern scholarly work, but this was the teaching of St. Athanasius in “On the Incarnation”. Here’s a specific quote:

Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt.

St. Thomas Aquinas also talks briefly about this in the Summa. I’m sure that there are other works that discuss this, but I’m not aware of them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That was exactly my first instinct! I completely understand that allegory and sacred myth have an important place in Scripture and that this in no way demeans either the text or its Authors. Initially, I thought that any departure from this approach to exegesis with respect to Genesis would be fundamentalist and not Catholic. My point is that I was wrong about that.

My question relates to actual Church teaching. This teaching doesn’t seem to be mere fundamentalism but historic orthodox catholic Christianity…

Ummmmmmmmm…
I doubt it.
The Church is still thinking, debating and reflecting on the subject. Let’s not make an easy one and decide things in a rush. I have read writings of bishops and cardinals that say this is a ticky point. Unless you simplify and close your eyes for the complexisty of the problem

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You beat me to the punch.

Consider this, the Garden of Eden is symbolic of innocence. We all eat from the Tree of Life, and are ignorant of the facts of life. (death, suffering, exc.) As children, we are all liker that. Then at some point, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. It broke their innocence, and they then noticed their nudity. When we are kids, we all experience this too. We start thinking for ourselves, and stop always doing what we are told because we are told to do it. One could say, a age or reason. It was at that point when God punished Adam and Eve, in the allegory. In our lives, we start to know real problems.

And for any of you who want to take a literal approach to the creation story, consider this. In Chapter 1 of Genesis, the order of creation is day 1) light, day, night 2) dome in the sky, bodies of water, sky 3) dry land, earth, sea, vegetation 4)stars, sun, fixed days/years 5) water animals, birds, 6) land animals and humans after the land animals. Then, move on to Chapter 2, and you get another creation. In order, it starts with a barren Earth (Gen.2:5), and a stream going through it (Gen. 2:6), then God forms man out of clay (Gen. 2:7). But wait, God should be done already according to chap. 1, right? Then in Gen. 2:8, God creates a garden, in 2:9 he creates trees. Are these not opposing stories, if taken literally?

Early Genesis is a story to understand the human condition, not a historical text.

I understand it this way.
Man had a certain condition, exactly as it is today.
And every man thought: “Why we suffer? Why we die? Why do good people do bad things? Why it seems that babies are not born good, for, as you say, they seem angels and sometimes they become devils, kill, assault etc.?”
And they found as we find today that evil comes in families, that if the son is a thief, it is because he was educated by a father who was a thieve already.
And then God (I think no one could give this extraordinary thought to men but God) inspired men to think: “This is not natural. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THIS WAY”. It is an extraordinary idea, for we could think that animals suffer and die like us.
But no. Humankind understood that there is something wrong with this situation, and it is not only me and you and she and he, but EVERYBODY. Men started realizing that this was general
But I jumped one step. God inspired men to realize that we are more than body. Animals are bodies too and I never saw my dog with anguisehd thoughts on whether he would be more than a dog. He is a dog, he is happy to be a dog. Period.
Not men. Men across the Globe, and not only in the Bible, know that men is not from here. Men know that when the beloved ones depart, they are not like the dogs, cows or the beloved horse, who die and finish. They know that they go on and on and on. They pray to the spirits, they go and visit the tombs, they venerate the spirits (and for not understanding this, the Cathlics were expelled from China a few centuries ago, for the Dominicans). The biggest migration on Earth if on the Chinese New Year, when 100 million (!!!) go to their ancestors home to venerate (not aodre as the dominicans transmited to the Pope, which caused Him to abolish the Chinese Rites and the subsequente expulsion from China). They do not venerate the tom of the beloved dog or horse!!!
So, as Plato would put it, men, when they die, go to where they come from. And so if they came from somewhere, this somewhere they put a name on it. The Bible called 2 names: Yaweh and Elohim, thenames of only one God. And they realized that, buy God’s inspiration, the dead were better than here. so, if they were better thean here, before they were born they were better for they went where they came from to. thus the Idea of God as the origin of Happiness and to be away from God the cause of suffering, temporal suffering inthis world, eternal suffering in the other.

I amd saying this in abstract terms and I guess, few people will read this text.
But If I told in a story, everybody would read for it ismuch more intersting. Jesus, the supreme Teacher taught everything in parables. He could do otherwise, buthe knew man.

Hence, the writers of the Bible told everthing is in a story that everyone understood with some errors (remember the idea of the jesus that if someone is sick then he sinned or then it was his father and Jesus said NO?).

My interpretation.

 

[fhansen]

Ummmmmmmmm…
I doubt it.
The Church is still thinking, debating and reflecting on the subject. Let’s not make an easy one and decide things in a rush. I have read writings of bishops and cardinals that say this is a ticky point. Unless you simplify and close your eyes for the complexisty of the problem

Ummmmmmm, not so sure though. This quote from para 400 of the Catechism seems problematical:
Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

 

[Perplexity]

I remember struggling with this when I was Catholic:

“In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin (De fide.) [Dogmatic]”

"The Council of Trent teaches in the Decree on Original Sin, that Adam became subject to sin by the transgression of the Divine commandment, that God has previously threatened him with death, and that he transmitted death to the whole of mankind. D 788 et seq. Cf. D101, 175. [1]

“Although man, on account of his composition from several parts, is by nature mortal, he was, according to the testimony of Revelation, endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality in Paradise. As a punishment for the transgression of the Divine probationary commandment, he was sentenced to the death with which he had previously been threatened.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954 p. 473 Cf. p. 112.

[1] D 788 = “If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.”

D 101 = “Can. 1. All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Church have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, * let him be anathema.”

D 175 = “Can. 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man into the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: Through one man sin entered in the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed into all men, in whom all have sinned[Rom. 5:12; Cf. St. Augustine].”

 

[fhansen]

I understand it this way.
Man had a certain condition, exactly as it is today.
And every man thought: “Why we suffer? Why we die? Why do good people do bad things? Why it seems that babies are not born good, for, as you say, they seem angels and sometimes they become devils, kill, assault etc.?”
And they found as we find today that evil comes in families, that if the son is a thief, it is because he was educated by a father who was a thieve already.
And then God (I think no one could give this extraordinary thought to men but God) inspired men to think: “This is not natural. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THIS WAY”. It is an extraordinary idea, for we could think that animals suffer and die like us.
But no. Humankind understood that there is something wrong with this situation, and it is not only me and you and she and he, but EVERYBODY. Men started realizing that this was general
But I jumped one step. God inspired men to realize that we are more than body. Animals are bodies too and I never saw my dog with anguisehd thoughts on whether he would be more than a dog. He is a dog, he is happy to be a dog. Period.
Not men. Men across the Globe, and not only in the Bible, know that men is not from here. Men know that when the beloved ones depart, they are not like the dogs, cows or the beloved horse, who die and finish. They know that they go on and on and on. They pray to the spirits, they go and visit the tombs, they venerate the spirits (and for not understanding this, the Cathlics were expelled from China a few centuries ago, for the Dominicans). The biggest migration on Earth if on the Chinese New Year, when 100 million (!!!) go to their ancestors home to venerate (not aodre as the dominicans transmited to the Pope, which caused Him to abolish the Chinese Rites and the subsequente expulsion from China). They do not venerate the tom of the beloved dog or horse!!!
So, as Plato would put it, men, when they die, go to where they come from. And so if they came from somewhere, this somewhere they put a name on it. The Bible called 2 names: Yaweh and Elohim, thenames of only one God. And they realized that, buy God’s inspiration, the dead were better than here. so, if they were better thean here, before they were born they were better for they went where they came from to. thus the Idea of God as the origin of Happiness and to be away from God the cause of suffering, temporal suffering inthis world, eternal suffering in the other.

I amd saying this in abstract terms and I guess, few people will read this text.
But If I told in a story, everybody would read for it ismuch more intersting. Jesus, the supreme Teacher taught everything in parables. He could do otherwise, buthe knew man.

Hence, the writers of the Bible told everthing is in a story that everyone understood with some errors (remember the idea of the jesus that if someone is sick then he sinned or then it was his father and Jesus said NO?).

My interpretation.

Some good insights here. However, I think it’d be more in line with Catholic thought, as well as with the thoughts of St Athanasius in post #12, to say that, since the beginning of human history, there was never a time when man did not “walk with God”, never a time when man did not know Him, until innocence was somehow lost at a later date. Some might speculate that the story of the Fall is an allegory for innocence lost in the transition from childhood to adulthood, that mans’ perspective inevitably changes-and fear and mistrust set in- as self-consciousness blossoms, but, in any case, the general idea is that at one time all was well, harmony and integrity existed within man, and then he lost it.

 

[Fleeting_Shadow]

Ummmmmmm, not so sure though. This quote from para 400 of the Catechism seems problematical:
Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

Thanks fhansen. I knew the Catechism referred to this somewhere but I couldn’t remember where when starting this thread. The Catechism, like St. Athanasius quoted by Ghosty above, clearly presents the teaching that death in the physical sense in the result of original sin.

Some of the previous posters may have misunderstood me - this teaching does not really appeal to me! I would really struggle with it intellectually. My understanding is that the Church rarely pronounces dogmatically on the ‘exact’ meaning of Scriptural passages. The metaphorical approaches above are all valid and, I think, more convincing. Yet, leaving Scripture aside, there is still the issue of Church teaching as outlined in the Catechism.

So then, the relevant question may be: what magisterial category does this teaching fall under? i.e. Are Catholics expected to assent to this particular teaching?

If, as has been written above, cardinals and bishops have disputed the point, it would seem the answer is ‘No’…

 

[fhansen]

I remember struggling with this when I was Catholic:

“In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin (De fide.) [Dogmatic]”

"The Council of Trent teaches in the Decree on Original Sin, that Adam became subject to sin by the transgression of the Divine commandment, that God has previously threatened him with death, and that he transmitted death to the whole of mankind. D 788 et seq. Cf. D101, 175. [1]

“Although man, on account of his composition from several parts, is by nature mortal, he was, according to the testimony of Revelation, endowed with the preternatural gift of bodily immortality in Paradise. As a punishment for the transgression of the Divine probationary commandment, he was sentenced to the death with which he had previously been threatened.” - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954 p. 473 Cf. p. 112.

[1] D 788 = “If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.”

D 101 = “Can. 1. All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Church have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, * let him be anathema.”

D 175 = “Can. 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man into the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: Through one man sin entered in the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed into all men, in whom all have sinned[Rom. 5:12; Cf. St. Augustine].”

I think the real message of all this is supposed to be that man cannot live without God, i.e. man needs God, while the Fall is the story of man rejecting this notion, coming to believe he can do without God. The result is that man, without his creator, is helpless to sustain either his physical or spiritual integrity-and, possessing self-consciousness, must learn this hard lesson. With the lack of the knowledge of God man tends towards moral corruption and non-being.

 

[marine13]

From my understanding of Genesis, before the fall, pain, suffering, and death did not exist. The Garden of Eden was pretty much Heaven on earth, a true paradise where those concepts did not matter. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit they removed themselves from God’s grace and therefore God imposed the just punishments of physical death.