Inclusive language, Adam and Eve, Original Sin, etc

[MTD]

The purpose of this thread is to continue the off-topic discussion which was started in What don’t you like about the NAB?

Death did not come into the world until after Adam sinned - not when Eve sinned. Eve lost sanctifying grace along with the rest of Creation, and she suffered for the consquences of her action, but it was Adam alone who brought death into the world.

All creation did not have sanctifying grace. Only Adam and Eve did.

If Adam had refused to be tempted, Eve would have received a punishment for her sin, but it would not have been death.

No, it would have been death; see Gen. 2:17 and 3:3. Don’t believe the lie of Satan in Gen. 3:4. I’m not going to get into what would have happened to Adam and the rest of humanity had only Eve sinned. For one, I don’t currently know the answer.

But Adam brought death to the whole world, including the animals, birds, fish, and plant life (who definitely did not sin) - and also including Eve.

No, that is your opinion. The Church has not pronounced on this. Take a look at Death Prior to Adam.

If they were hearing it in Latin, then they were hearing the “gender inclusive” version, of course.

Sermons, catechetical lessons, and everyday conversations in England were not done in Latin but in English. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that only in the Bible was man used to refer to all humanity, for it was standard usage and has been until the feminists of the last half century got offended.

It’s only the English translations that use “man” for both the male and for all human beings. In Latin, “viri” is used for the male, and “homo” is used for all human beings, regardless of gender.

I’ve taken several years of Latin. I can assure you homo doesn’t just mean human being; it can sometimes mean even husband!

“Homo factus est” literally translated means, “A human being he truly became.”

Where did you get that word truly? I see no adverb or other intensifier in the Latin. Human being would not be an accurate translation of the homo in “Homo factus est” because the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity already was a Being. He did not become another being in the Incarnation but only took on our human nature; i.e., a human body and soul.

If the intent had been to say that he became man, it would have said, “viri factus est” instead of “homo factus est.”

No. “Viri factus est” would most correctly be translated “He became a man.” There is a real difference there, mind you.

Maria

 

[jmcrae]

Part of the reason women can’t be priests is that the woman (Eve) didn’t commit the sin that is being atoned for in the sacrifice, right? It has to be a male making the sacrifice, because it was a male who committed the sin - this is the reasoning that we are told, anyway.

But, if Eve was equally as guilty as Adam, then why aren’t women also required to become priests, and make atonement for her sin?

The Early Fathers teach us that it was Mary who undid Eve’s sin, through her “yes” to the Angel at the Annunciation. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s sin, with no mention whatsoever of Eve.

 

[MTD]

Part of the reason women can’t be priests is that the woman (Eve) didn’t commit the sin that is being atoned for in the sacrifice, right? It has to be a male making the sacrifice, because it was a male who committed the sin - this is the reasoning that we are told, anyway.

It is? That reasoning is only conjecture. The real reason women can’t be priests is because God decided it would be that way (see CCC 1577). We can only trust Him to have made the best decision, even if we don’t know the reasoning, since He is all-wise. Of course, we can try to find out why and maybe come very close to the reason, but at some point we have to just submit to His decision, as He has not seen fit to definitively reveal the reason.

But, if Eve was equally as guilty as Adam, then why aren’t women also required to become priests, and make atonement for her sin?

Priests do not offer the Sacrifice of the Mass on behalf of males only. The Sacrifice of Christ was offered on behalf of us all, and the Mass is a re-presentation of that Sacrifice.

You’re understanding the role of the priest as one of atonement for his sins. What you’re forgetting is that the priest makes present and applies the one Sacrifice of Christ in atonement for the sins of all of us, not just his own sins or those of males. The work of priests derives its efficacy from participation in the Sacrifice of Christ. Surely you aren’t saying that the Sacrifice of Christ only applies to males.

The Early Fathers teach us that it was Mary who undid Eve’s sin, through her “yes” to the Angel at the Annunciation. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s sin, with no mention whatsoever of Eve.

Mary did not redeem Eve! Mary’s actions did no more for Eve than they did for the rest of us! The Fathers of the Church only compare Mary to Eve insofar as she participated in the Redemption as Eve did in the Fall. Just as Eve led Adam to his fall, Mary said “yes” to God’s plan of redemption. But Mary’s “yes” had no redeeming or atoning quality. It is Jesus alone who redeemed Eve. Mary is called the New Eve because she is the “mother of all the living” through her participation in the work of redemption. Please note that she is the mother of all the living; in other words, she participated in the redemption of all of us, male and female, not just of Eve!
The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. (Lumen Gentium 56)

Maria