If dogmas are infallible, how is the Church's teaching on original sin reconciled with the symbolic nature of Adam and Eve when it was most likely not

  • Thread starter Thread starter pedrorosario
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pedrorosario

Guest
If dogmas are infallible, how is the Church’s teaching on original sin reconciled with the symbolic nature of Adam and Eve when it (Adam and Eve) was most likely not symbolic at the time of the declaration of the corresponding dogma?
 
Last edited:
The Church considers Adam and Eve real, historical people, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from.
 
pedrorosario said:
If dogmas are infallible, how is the Church’s teaching on original sin reconciled with the symbolic nature of Adam and Eve when it (Adam and Eve) was most likely not symbolic at the time of the declaration of the corresponding dogma?
Click to expand...
It only becomes a problem if we think too much of original sin as a genetic defect passed on from person to person, but I don’t think that’s the best or only way to think about it, and neither do I think the Church requires us to think of it strictly in that manner.

Original sin can be thought of the sin of the race itself, which is why it’s said somewhere that in Adam, the race was tested and fell, and in Jesus, the race was redeemed. Original sin is not Adam’s personal guilt passed on to us, but rather Adam, the race (of which he was representative) fell and sin came into the world.

Now if it should be found through science that there was no genetic Adam, then we should not fear it. Scientific truth is still truth, and since the Church believes the Truth is not a What, but a Who, then Truth is one, and scientific truth will never contradict religious truth. Perhaps it may be acceptable to think that in light of some hypothetical future scientific confirmation of polygenism, then perhaps “Adam” is the human race in its primordial state and as a race, it sinned, thereby introducing original sin into the world. I won’t know for sure, but I don’t see at this point how that would be incompatible with the Christian faith.

I know for a fact that original sin exists; we see this in the state of man throughout history, and even today. We see it in the concupiscence we ourselves experience, and the actual sins we commit. Man is a fallen race. That much is obvious. I also know, from critical and historical studies, that Jesus did come into world, make claims of Godhood, died, and rose. So there must be truth to the teaching of original sin and in the redemption from it.

That said, with scientific studies on evolution still going on, there’s not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that polygenism is absolutely true, so I currently still hold on to monogenism. All I’m saying is that I’m not afraid of what science will discover, because we do not believe in a conflict between scientific truth and the truths of salvation.
 
Last edited:
Welcome!
  1. Which religion/denomination or non-denomination are you?
  2. Were you born and raised Catholic?
  3. Are you still?
 
pedrorosario said:
If dogmas are infallible, how is the Church’s teaching on original sin reconciled with the symbolic nature of Adam and Eve when it (Adam and Eve) was most likely not symbolic at the time of the declaration of the corresponding dogma?
Click to expand...
Symbols represent something.

The Adam and Eve story is speculation about the nature of our humanity. Someone looked at himself, and saw sin in his life and the lives of all those around him. Reasoning that there must have been a first instance of sin, he described a world where sin was unnecessary. (the garden of Eden) Events transpired and we no longer live in Eden but in a world where sin is everywhere. Etc. IOW, this is a philosophical speculation on the nature of our humanity, not a history of two particular individuals. If we treat the story as history, we are not seeing it as the philosophical masterpiece it is. Instead of treating it as a story about us, a literalist approach treats it as a story about someone else.

Having said all that, symbols generally represent something. There was a real person who committed the first sin. The details of that person’s life are not known to us, but his life conforms to the life of Adam just like each of our lives conforms to the life of Adam. If original sin is transmitted physically, there is a person from whom it physically comes, since there is someone whom Adam symbolizes.

I do not know if that made any sense 😂 But I tried!
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
pedrorosario:
how is the Church’s teaching on original sin reconciled with the symbolic nature of Adam and Eve
Click to expand...
It is dogma that we have our original parents.
Click to expand...
It’s actually at the level of sententia certa. It’s fairly accepted as clearly deduced, but without final approval or definition. For religious studies and catechesis, it’s the best and safest approach to teaching, but it does not preclude development, including in the light of scientific findings.
 
See, I don’t yet have a digital copy of Ott’s. Adam and Eve are in there, thanks for the correction.
 
porthos11 said:
I know for a fact that original sin exists; we see this in the state of man throughout history, and even today.
Click to expand...
G.K. Chesterton (before he became Catholic) once wrote: “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” – Orthodoxy (In reality, all Catholic theology can be proved either from Scripture, Tradition and/or reason c.f. Vatican I 1869-1870).
 
po18guy said:
Cool. So, where did your question come from?
Click to expand...
porthos11 said:
sententia certa
Click to expand...
Dovekin said:
sententia certa
Click to expand...
I’m taking bible catholic classes from a catholic theologian, of course. I got fascinated with the distinctions made between doctrine and dogmas by my teacher.

He explained them the following way:

In science: An Assumption is a proposition ( idea that makes complete sense in itself) without any support.

Theory is a proposition backed up by evidence.

Law is a proposition supported by evidence which is so true that no one would challenge it. (infallible).

In Catholic theology, the corresponding terms would be: doctrine ( theory) and dogmas ( laws).

Taking this original sin dogma as an example:

1." Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation but by descent. "

When this dogma was declared as such, it was most likely thought as an actual Adam doing so which makes it a unique proposition (idea).

If Adam was later interpreted as symbolic then that would change the original idea which was considered dogmatic.

As a result, the change of idea would turn it into regular doctrine not dogma because it isn’t what it was first revealed.
 
Last edited:
I bear in mind always that there are three threological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love (1 Corinthians 13:13). Fr. Benedict Groeschel† C.F.R. wryly spoke:
“They are not called the theological virtues because theologians necessarily have them.”
Click to expand...
Not a comment on the theologian you study under, but once the faith becomes abstraction, it leads to cloudiness and confusion. There is only one who desires that.
 
Last edited:
It is pope and magisterium, the living apostolic messengers of Truth, living Christ speaking to us, who are infallible, not doctrine. Yet the living apostolic See always to us today speaks only what it has received, knowing by the present Holy Spirit what must never be forgotten to be delivered to us. So it holds scripture and tradition close to remind what was received as it (the magisterium) speaks with the mind of the Spirit rather than the mind of the flesh.

Just as Jesus opened the scripture (dogma) to the two on the Emmaus Road, he in person (ordained priests, bishops) opens truth to us that was truth to our fathers (orthodox dogma) and we are obedient to our priests and bishops, not to written words of dogma memorized, though to one outside the circle of those obedient it appears we follow rules centuries old.
 
To be honest with you, my original intent behind clearing this up for me is to prove that the core of the church (belief system) has always been perfect making it more than a clear evidence that the Holy Spirit has been guiding us since Jesus ascended and it is us ( catholics) who have misinterpreted his teachings at different points in time resulting in wrongdoings.

Bad church practices have come from either wrong doctrines which are fallible( not dogmas) or wrong applications of doctrines.

That’s all I want to prove.
 
Last edited:
pedrorosario said:
1." Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation but by descent. "

When this dogma was declared as such, it was most likely thought as an actual Adam doing so which makes it a unique proposition (idea).

If Adam was later interpreted as symbolic then that would change the original idea which was considered dogmatic.

As a result, the change of idea would turn it into regular doctrine not dogma because it isn’t what it was first revealed.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily. Whether monogenism or polygenism is proven scientifically, the fact remains that I was born in original sin, as were my parents. Yes, indeed, that is dogma (de fide).

Now whether that has to literally trace to a single set of first parents (sententia certa, i.e. not dogmatic), is obviously not absolutely necessary (at this time) although the support for it is strong. Even if polygenism were proven to be scientifically true, as I said earlier, original sin is a very real thing and we inherit it. Obviously, man as a race is fallen, and everyone is born in original sin, something they inherit.

Yes, monogenism makes the most obvious sense, but I’m pretty sure original sin can be reconciled even with polygenism, if ever it’s scientifically proven. As I said, the Church, as a patron of the sciences, does not fear scientific research or discovery.

As it stands right now, because monogenism is sententia certa, and polygenism is treated skeptically, I hold on to monogenism at this time. However, because it’s “just” sententia certa, I don’t worry about any possible development due to scientific discovery.

The Church has always been wise in these areas. She will not pronounce something as dogmatic while investigation is still going on.
 
Last edited:
Dogma crushes the head of heresy. Doctrine set in stone to settle the argument. The Church is loathe to do it, thus the dogmas are a fraction of the content of divine revelation.

Notice that the evil one works backward, attempting to oppose and undo all that is done and all that is revealed. Introducing murkiness and doubt into the very origins of the human race; the very origins of his envy and the death it produced is perhaps his last gasp leading to his greatest failure.

Consider:


Note that the heresies roughly follow the apostle’s Creed, chronologically. Who incites this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top