Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
The word “erienism” which is found in paragraphs 11 & 12 in post 570 has quotation marks with a purpose. The quote marks indicate the need for a dictionary of obscure words.

**Word **
eirenism

Definition
peaceful state of mind
phrontistery.info/e.html

Erienism is a goal in paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Note: It is important that a mentor understand that what Pope Pius XII saw in the 1940’s is actually happening today.
Click to expand...
My apology for the typo in the first sentence in post 574 and the typo in the reference to a goal. The word should be spelled “eirenism.” I definitely need a peaceful state of mind.

Considering eirenism as a goal is basic common sense which helps us to understand why some other Catholics are chipping away at the basic structure of Catholicism.

One last thought before I take a break. There is a discovery of Truth, a search for Truth found in scripture and other sources which sound exciting. Maybe someday, other Catholics will accept the reality found in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. That would be a great discussion within our alphabetical format. We are in the Sacred Scripture Forum.
 
"Lovely Granny, as I have stated before, is not accusing anyone of “eirenism.”
Click to expand...
Another thought before I take a break. I can and do speak for myself.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
I’m sorry, but I am not sure what this is saying. Maybe after my break …
Click to expand...
St Nicholas pictured (santa clause) will know if you deny the divinity of Christ even if you don’t. So you better duck or else he’ll punch you! Arian is also a type of duck (bird) so that is where the meme comes in. ( I think anyway!)

I’ve probably not explained that well, but as we were discussing arianism before I thought of you.

Stealth Arianism follows the same fatal error, but with a twist: while the Arians of the fourth century openly denied Christ’s divinity, today‘s Arians will profess Jesus as God, and yet through their actions deny it. In other words, they don’t even know they are Arians.

romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/
 
*"Lovely Granny, as I have stated before, is not accusing anyone of “eirenism.” *
Click to expand...
Until I return – please note that the above is not accurate information. My sincere suggestion for OneSheep is that he should find another mentor who is a true Catholic.

The e-mail Catholic Answers Daily is one suggestion. catholic.com/
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
The word “erienism” which is found in paragraphs 11 & 12 in post 570 has quotation marks with a purpose. The quote marks indicate the need for a dictionary of obscure words.

**Word **
eirenism

Definition
peaceful state of mind
phrontistery.info/e.html
Click to expand...
Dear Granny,

Please find a Catholic source for word definitions. There is not one listed for the word you are using, so the only word we can go with is irenicism, which was addressed by Pope Benedict in the quote I gave you.
Erienism is a goal in paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Note: It is important that a mentor understand that what Pope Pius XII saw in the 1940’s is actually happening today.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, Granny. “Erienism” is not a word. “Arianism” is not the same as “eirenism” in any source I can find.

For a valid discussion of Arianism, look here:

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Excerpt:

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

Therefore, an Arianist does not profess our creed, and I, like all Catholics, profess our creed. And since you know the rules of the CAF include not questioning the sincerity of a person’s faith or belief, you are surely not accusing anyone of arianism, but you must be saying that I believe in Irenicism. And, of course, many Catholics are Irenicists when Irenicism has to do with ecumenism and finding unity among Christians, which is called for in the verses Pope Benedict quoted. Irenicism that strives for unity at the expense of Truth is a false irenicism, at least that is my reading of the sources. Mind you, I am really new to all these terms.

In addition, since Humani Generis specifically attaches the word “unity” with the word “eirenism”, and arianism has nothing to do with unity, I am going to restate that the document was written in an era of protectionism, there was great fear about uniting Catholics and Protestants in any way.

One of us is getting all our terms mixed up, Granny, but I’m still not positive that it isn’t me! 😃
 
Good Morning fhansen,
fhansen said:
I think the real point, OS, is that while God needs to be understood as boundlessly forgiving, merciful, kind, and loving (and not all seem to accept and understand this very truth well), He still allows us to be the wildcard, to reject His forgiveness, mercy, kindness, and love. That’s what free will gives us: the ability to move towards or away from justice.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.
To say that God saves without reference to our sin, to our choices, is to completely gut the concepts of free will and goodness of their meanings.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. A person living in sin is not saved, he is alienated and enslaved.
If salvation is universal in spite of sin why did Jesus suffer and die? Why do *any *of us suffer and die? Why not just stock heaven with a bunch of eternally happy people and avoid all the drama?
Click to expand...
Salvation is not necessarily universal. People do have the choice to reject God. I don’t see why any aware person would, but that is beside the point. Jesus’ suffering and death was part of revelation, there are many reasons why the suffering and death were part of that revelation, IMO.

Stocking heaven with a bunch of eternally happy people sounds great!! Isn’t that His aim?

The drama, well, that has to do with our blindness and ignorance. Again we go to the purpose of revelation.
If we were to summarize “salvation history” from Eden down through Jesus, it’s always been about man’s *will -*and how it responds to and cooperates with God’s grace-or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, the alcoholic is uncooperative, the person caught up in greed is uncooperative, the person obsessed with some human drive is uncooperative. Revelation shows us how and why to be cooperative.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:17

So, are we not actually saying the same things? Did I miss something again?
 
I have seen different English words used to translate the Latin word in question. The official English translation on the Vatican website that grannymh quoted uses “eirenism” but one can find English translations of the two paragraphs (11 and 12) with other English words used, including “pacifism.”

Here is the encyclical in the original Latin.

Below are the two paragraphs containing the debated words (bolded), irenismum in the first and irenismo in the second:

Immo et aliud obversatur periculum idque eo gravius, quo virtutis est specie magis obtectum. Plures enim sunt, qui humani generis discordiam ac mentium confusionem deplorantes, imprudenti animorum studio permoti, impetu quodam moventur atque impenso desiderio flagrant infringendi saepta, quibus probi honestique viri invicem disiunguntur, «irenismum» talem amplectentes ut, quaestionibus missis quae homines separant, non modo respiciant ad irruentem atheismum communibus viribus propulsandum, sed etiam ad opposita in rebus quoque dogmaticis reconcilianda. Et quemadmodum olim fuerunt, qui rogarent num translaticia Ecclesiae apologetica ratio obstaculum constitueret potius quam auxilium ad animos Christo lucrandos, ita hodie non desunt qui eo usque procedere audeant ut serio quaestionem moveant num theologia eiusque methodus, quales in scholis ecclesiastica approbante auctoritate vigent, non modo perficiendae, verum etiam omnino reformandae sint, ut regnum Christi quocumque terrarum, inter homines cuiusvis culturae vel cuiusvis opinionis religiosae efficacius propagetur.

Quodsi iidem ad nihil aliud intenderent quam ad disciplinam eccles iasticam eiusque methodum hodiernis condicionibus ac necessitatibus, nova quadam inducta ratione, aptius accommodandas, nulla fere esset causa timendi; at vero imprudenti aestuantes «irenismo», nonnulli veluti obices ad fraternam unitatem restaurandam ea putare videntur, quae ipsis legibus ac principiis a Christo datis innituntur itemque institutis ab eo conditis, vel quae munimina ac fulcimina exstant integritatis fidei, quibus collapsis, omnia uniuntur quidem, sed solummodo in ruinam.

I will leave it to Catholic scholars, expert in Latin, to weigh in on whether the English word “eirenism” is meant in this context to mean pacifism or something else. All I think I know is that the context is one of warning. The pacifism (if that’s what is meant) seems to be placed in quotes to imply that it is false, unwarranted, involving unacceptable compromise, etc. It was one of many things opposed in that encyclical; others included exsistentialismum, historicismums, rationalismum, immanentismum, idealismum, and relativismum.
 
OneSheep said:
Good Morning fhansen,

Yes, I agree.

I agree completely. A person living in sin is not saved, he is alienated and enslaved.

Salvation is not necessarily universal. People do have the choice to reject God. I don’t see why any aware person would, but that is beside the point. Jesus’ suffering and death was part of revelation, there are many reasons why the suffering and death were part of that revelation, IMO.

Stocking heaven with a bunch of eternally happy people sounds great!! Isn’t that His aim?

The drama, well, that has to do with our blindness and ignorance. Again we go to the purpose of revelation.

Yes, the alcoholic is uncooperative, the person caught up in greed is uncooperative, the person obsessed with some human drive is uncooperative. Revelation shows us how and why to be cooperative.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:17

So, are we not actually saying the same things? Did I miss something again?
Click to expand...
A point of contention, I’d say, would be if in your view forgiveness automatically equates to salvation without regard to our embracing or acceptance of that forgiveness. The Church and Scripture both maintain that not all will do so, not all will accept God’s offer. And, at the same time, God would be a tyrant if He failed to forgive anyone who sinned strictly due to ignorance.
 
fhansen said:
A point of contention, I’d say, would be if in your view forgiveness automatically equates to salvation without regard to our embracing or acceptance of that forgiveness. The Church and Scripture both maintain that not all will do so, not all will accept God’s offer. And, at the same time, God would be a tyrant if He failed to forgive anyone who sinned strictly due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
Here is a question that might draw a clearer distinction: Does God forgive because He is love, or because we have earned forgiveness?

To me, God would not be a tyrant if he failed to forgive anyone who sinned strictly due to forgiveness, but God would be human if He failed to forgive in those circumstances. When people do actually discover the blindness or ignorance of the sinner, they often dismiss such understanding and say “he should have known better”, and hang onto their contempt.

In addition, God would not be a tyrant if he refused to forgive a person who has not “earned” forgiveness, but again, He would be very human to forgive in that way. As our beloved Granny has said so many times, though, God is not the same as people. We know God through Jesus, and Jesus forgave without condition.

There is a discussion to be had concerning forgiveness and salvation. If unconditional forgiveness is a characteristic of God, and salvation is a free gift, does that mean everyone is “saved”? The short answer is “maybe”. Salvation involves participation by the individual. God forgives the alcoholic, but salvation for him involves giving up the drink. God forgives the thief, but salvation involves appreciating the value of the people he hurts, being in tune with compassion. I am not talking about salvation as the “h-ticket”, I am talking about salvation as the free, holy life that begins on Earth, a salvation that can occur for anyone alive today, here and now.
 
OneSheep said:
Here is a question that might draw a clearer distinction: Does God forgive because He is love, or because we have earned forgiveness?

To me, God would not be a tyrant if he failed to forgive anyone who sinned strictly due to forgiveness, but God would be human if He failed to forgive in those circumstances. When people do actually discover the blindness or ignorance of the sinner, they often dismiss such understanding and say “he should have known better”, and hang onto their contempt.

In addition, God would not be a tyrant if he refused to forgive a person who has not “earned” forgiveness, but again, He would be very human to forgive in that way. As our beloved Granny has said so many times, though, God is not the same as people. We know God through Jesus, and Jesus forgave without condition.

There is a discussion to be had concerning forgiveness and salvation. If unconditional forgiveness is a characteristic of God, and salvation is a free gift, does that mean everyone is “saved”? The short answer is “maybe”. Salvation involves participation by the individual. God forgives the alcoholic, but salvation for him involves giving up the drink. God forgives the thief, but salvation involves appreciating the value of the people he hurts, being in tune with compassion. I am not talking about salvation as the “h-ticket”, I am talking about salvation as the free, holy life that begins on Earth, a salvation that can occur for anyone alive today, here and now.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the “drama” of this life outside of Eden, mentioned in an earlier post, is to help mold us into people who realize their dependency on-of our need for-God. The purpose of the Incarnation-of grace personified so to speak- is to show humanity what we don’t seem to easily get, that He’s supremely worthy of that dependency; He not only won’t abuse our trust but He has nothing but limitless, ineffable goodness in store for us.

But all of this has always been connected to man’s*** will.*** Whether in man’s initial act of disobedience in Eden or in our freedom to accept or reject God’s overtures at any point since that time, man’s will is the “prize”; our justice or perfection are tied to our willingness to embrace justice. And this is why, as far as we can tell by the story, the other thief was not saved.
 
OneSheep said:
As our beloved Granny has said so many times, though, God is not the same as people. We know God through Jesus, and Jesus forgave without condition."
Click to expand...
Today, my break will be traveling to see some of my family. I am anxious to be on the road again.

Because my position – there are major differences between Divine nature and human nature – has been mentioned in post 585 – I thought I better quickly mention that a Catholic Divine/human explanation needs “how” and “why”. Basically, Catholics cannot omit the major truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. Denying the obvious reality in those first three informative chapters is one example of “eirenism” (peacefull state of mind)
 
grannymh said:
Today, my break will be traveling to see some of my family. I am anxious to be on the road again.

Because my position – there are major differences between Divine nature and human nature – has been mentioned in post 585 – I thought I better quickly mention that a Catholic Divine/human explanation needs “how” and “why”. Basically, Catholics cannot omit the major truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. Denying the obvious reality in those first three informative chapters is one example of “eirenism” (peacefull state of mind)
Click to expand...
Wishing you a safe and wonderful trip, grannymh!

Fr. Peter R. Scott of the SSPX identified what he/they considered to be another example of eirenism.

Q: "The Filioque was recently removed from the Nicene Creed in the Eastern Rite church where I attend Mass. Can I still continue to go there?

A: …

Why, then, would many of the the Uniate Churches have decided in 1990 to now eliminate the Filioque from the Creed at Mass? Why eliminate such a clear profession of Catholicity and of union with the one, true Church?

The answer is: Ecumenism with the Orthodox. Pope John Paul II himself gave the example, alas, in 1981, on the occasion of the 1600 years anniversary celebration of the First Council of Constantinople. For the benefit of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox he recited the Creed without the Filioque. The impression given by this act is that this phrase is a later addition and is of little importance. But is not this the false distinction of the Modernists condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi (no. 13), that is between the primitive formulas, and the secondary formulas which evolve (e.g., Filioque), as if a Catholic were not obliged to accept equally every single defined doctrine of Faith?

This attitude of “peace at all costs” with heretics and schismatics, regardless of the points of doctrine which separate us, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1950 under the name of eirenism.

These advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma (Humani Generis, no. 11).
 
cfauster said:
Wishing you a safe and wonderful trip, grannymh!

Fr. Peter R. Scott of the SSPX identified what he/they considered to be another example of eirenism.

Q: "The Filioque was recently removed from the Nicene Creed in the Eastern Rite church where I attend Mass. Can I still continue to go there?

A: …

Why, then, would many of the the Uniate Churches have decided in 1990 to now eliminate the Filioque from the Creed at Mass? Why eliminate such a clear profession of Catholicity and of union with the one, true Church?

The answer is: Ecumenism with the Orthodox. Pope John Paul II himself gave the example, alas, in 1981, on the occasion of the 1600 years anniversary celebration of the First Council of Constantinople. For the benefit of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox he recited the Creed without the Filioque. The impression given by this act is that this phrase is a later addition and is of little importance. But is not this the false distinction of the Modernists condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi (no. 13), that is between the primitive formulas, and the secondary formulas which evolve (e.g., Filioque), as if a Catholic were not obliged to accept equally every single defined doctrine of Faith?

This attitude of “peace at all costs” with heretics and schismatics, regardless of the points of doctrine which separate us, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1950 under the name of eirenism.

These advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma (Humani Generis, no. 11).
Click to expand...
Hello Cfauster,

I have yet to stand as an advocate of “eirenism”, for I do not fully understand what it is, but I would love to present this as an example of a real eye-roller.

From the article you linked:

“The expression Filioque refers to the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and not just from the Father alone, as the schismatic Orthodox teach.”

Seriously? There was schism concerning such a fine point as a detail of the nature of the trinity, when the trinity itself is seen as a mystery? Why do people divide themselves over such things? :rolleyes: Can someone come up with a real, consequential difference in practical spirituality if a person believes one way or another?

This seems to be one of those how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions. There is something to be said for Truth, for sure, but how important are some of these questions, and cannot some of it be a use of language? People who divide over these issues are missing the centrality of Eucharist, are they not? When it comes down to it, IMO all actual schisms boiled down to political issues, not theological ones. There is a time to say “It is a mystery”.

It is when I hear about these types of arguments that I remember how long ago I knew that my own faith is solidly in union with first of all the “simplest” of believers. We can look upon the woman from a poor family who has neither the time or education to ponder the things that lead to the schism referred to above, but loves and serves her family and the people around her. The elderly man who faithfully prays the rosary and gives generously to causes that help the poor and marginalized, and smiles patiently at the “pious” youths who argue over trivialities is an image to emanate.

Ooof. Not to be argumentative.:o You see, if we discuss these heady matters and at the end of the day shake hands and remember that we are One Body, all is well!
 
fhansen said:
The purpose of the “drama” of this life outside of Eden, mentioned in an earlier post, is to help mold us into people who realize their dependency on-of our need for-God. The purpose of the Incarnation-of grace personified so to speak- is to show humanity what we don’t seem to easily get, that He’s supremely worthy of that dependency; He not only won’t abuse our trust but He has nothing but limitless, ineffable goodness in store for us.

But all of this has always been connected to man’s*** will.*** Whether in man’s initial act of disobedience in Eden or in our freedom to accept or reject God’s overtures at any point since that time, man’s will is the “prize”; our justice or perfection are tied to our willingness to embrace justice.
Click to expand...
Well, “perfection” in the Gospel has to do with compassion and mercy. It is true that God’s justice is mercy, and humans tend to think that it is unjust for an unrepentant person to be forgiven. Humans also tend to think that it is unfair for a person to live a sinful life, ignorant and blind, yet end up choosing to be with Christ and enjoying the same salvation as everyone else.

Man’s will follows his awareness, fhansen. A person truly aware will commit himself to following Christ, embracing love. Revelation is a Truth that unifies.
And this is why, as far as we can tell by the story, the other thief was not saved.
Click to expand...
I can’t tell that from the story, and the Church has never said that the man did not go to heaven. And actually, the man who supported Jesus did not “deserve” to be tortured to death, at least not in terms of what we know of the value of humanity. The one man’s call for Jesus to save them was a matter of despair, was it not? Who would not ask the same of God if the possibility seemed to be there?
 
OneSheep said:
Hello Cfauster,

I have yet to stand as an advocate of “eirenism”, for I do not fully understand what it is, but I would love to present this as an example of a real eye-roller.

From the article you linked:

“The expression Filioque refers to the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and not just from the Father alone, as the schismatic Orthodox teach.” …
Click to expand...
Indeed, my own eyes rolled when I realized that JPII was being accused by the SSPX of eirenism for extending an olive branch to the Orthodox church and reciting the Nicene creed on that occasion in a manner more familiar to members of the Orthodox church.

I just can’t find hardly any examples of the word “eirenism” being used in the relevant context, but that is one, so I provided it as an example. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the current Pope Francis were accused similarly for his friendly relations with Lutherans, for example.

Anyway, I can respect, dialogue with, and (reciprocally, ideally) share the love of Christ among people with whom we can only “agree to disagree” about certain things.

Such relations carry risks, of course, but so do isolation, mistrust, and mutual condemnation.

I don’t think JPII was actually betraying Catholic-specific doctrine when he omitted Filioque from that recitation of the Nicene creed.

I don’t think Francis was actually betraying Catholic-specific doctrine when he went to Sweden this year and met with Lutheran leaders.

Let us always seek and treasure truth, be unafraid to defend it as we see it, but also do so with love.
 
cfauster said:
Indeed, my own eyes rolled when I realized that JPII was being accused by the SSPX of eirenism for extending an olive branch to the Orthodox church and reciting the Nicene creed on that occasion in a manner more familiar to members of the Orthodox church.

I just can’t find hardly any examples of the word “eirenism” being used in the relevant context, but that is one, so I provided it as an example. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the current Pope Francis were accused similarly for his friendly relations with Lutherans, for example.

Anyway, I can respect, dialogue with, and (reciprocally, ideally) share the love of Christ among people with whom we can only “agree to disagree” about certain things.

Such relations carry risks, of course, but so do isolation, mistrust, and mutual condemnation.

I don’t think JPII was actually betraying Catholic-specific doctrine when he omitted Filioque from that recitation of the Nicene creed.

I don’t think Francis was actually betraying Catholic-specific doctrine when he went to Sweden this year and met with Lutheran leaders.

Let us always seek and treasure truth, be unafraid to defend it as we see it, but also do so with love.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Just for fun, since I have had a wonderful, trip, day.

As far as I can tell, the first sentence of Genesis 3: 6 is the first record of …

**Word **
eirenism

Definition
peaceful state of mind
phrontistery.info/e.html

Dictionary of Obscure Words, Letter E

Current note.
Because the “peaceful state of mind” changed is why a few Catholics do not like those first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. One public Catholic is very sad because Catholics believe in the Original Sin. He moans that Catholics should replace that “fly in the ointment.” myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc
Each human person, including Eve and Adam, is worthy of profound respect. 😃
 
The Letters S & T are for the question –

Why is Sacred Scripture, the first three chapters of Genesis,
an important Testament?
A sample answer: It affirms the existence of a Divine Creator God.
 
Why is Sacred Scripture, the first three chapters of Genesis,
an important Testament?

The author’s testament is based on Divine Revelation.

Personally, I accept the theory that the Holy Spirit inspired the author of those first three historical chapters of Genesis. However, I keep imagining the Holy Spirit, at the author’s shoulder, whispering in his ear. :o

If we are going to talk historically, then we need to consider a blood and guts person in the Hebrew Nation surrounded by pagan cultures. This person is open to God’s words. Thus, the author is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who chooses the means of inspiration.

This naturally intelligent person is neither blind nor deaf. Nor is he ignorant of the fact that some of Eve and Adam’s descendants became rebels. (Genesis, chapter 4) Those of us who have children sadly know that it is possible that some of our offspring will leave the nest in rebellion. If I were the author, I would be worried about the oral history of humankind.

It is evident that the creative author loved God. We often consider Genesis 1: 27 as God’s position. And that is absolutely correct. On the other hand, this observant author looked at himself as being entirely different from the animal kingdom. He recognized the leap from natural nature to a distinct human nature. (Genesis 1: 25-26) Being in the image of God, the author used his spiritual capability to share, by his love, in the nature of God. The author expressed his love for God by carefully recording God’s truth. The author is probably the first charismatic to utter “Praise God!” 😉

If we set aside the misconceptions of some public popular mentors, and peacefully read the first three chapters of Genesis --not necessarily all at once-- we will find some interesting gems. Like Adam being relieved to know that he will be provided with food. The catch that he has to do some work is a lot better than starvation. Keep in mind that there were no mega grocery stores in the Garden. At this point, Adam is the only human. Who would he hire to stock the shelves?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top