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

[OneSheep]

I probably should have put more of these in my post. My apology.

The sentence in bold follows the format of the talking snake in the line above. The whole thing is a parody of current ideas which can be used to explain the** older** version of Big Tent. It is also a parody of what people should do to get rid of chapters one, two, and three in the Book of Genesis. The conclusion is a parody of the current dangerous Original Sin.

The part in bold …
The Big Tent Religious Shelter aka Big Tent is a place where the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be celebrated because it violates the beliefs of some of the inhabitants in the Tent.
…is not a parody. It is a possibility in the future. It is a possibility which could happen if we do not take seriously the warning of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, chapters 11& 12

Link to Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Well, I have taken a hard look at chapters 11 and 12, and I see no reference to “Big Tent”. However, I am starting to understand fears a little more. If “Big Tent” means discontinuation of celebration of Eucharist, this is indeed of concern. I have never used the words that way, and if there is a legitimate source for such a definition, please bring it forth!

I wish you had brought this up earlier! When I hear the words “Big Tent” I am thinking of the many parts of the body, and Eucharist itself is what keeps the parts together. Of course, the first ministry for all of us, as is explained in our diocese, is the ministry of hospitality. We invite people in, we invite them to share and belong.

In addition, the Church values an ecumenical approach, which can be contrasted against some of the pre-Vatican II leanings, in my own general observation.

Granny, we are to be very wary of those who are pointing fingers and indicating that we are to be fearful of obscure and undefined concepts and especially those pointing at people whom they proclaim to be feared or condemned in some way.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Promotion of fear and/or condemnation of any fellow Catholic or Catholics can certainly lead to schism and goes against Gospel values. This does not, however, eliminate the need for fraternal correction. If something I say is against our faith, people may rightfully correct me. If someone asks me for the source of something I say against someone, and I refuse to reveal my sources, I am subject to fraternal correction. If I publicly slander a fellow Catholic as “against Catholicism” any Catholic may rightfully correct me and call me to question. It is our calling to correct those who publicly defame others.

The words of a pontiff from decades ago were meant to address problems from that time. If the same issue is of importance or applies today, it is up to our Church leadership to put it all in context, particularly in light of Vatican II.

So, keep me in line, dear!

 

[OneSheep]

I appreciate your observations. Thank you.

**Therefore, would you kindly tell me your **first step to us unfolding revelation.

You did speak clearly in post 514. So I am confident that you can speak clearly an answer to my common sense request for your first step…

“Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important.”

I’m sorry Granny, I don’t get it. I’m not the Spirit, I am a speck of dust. I told you where I saw trends, but that is all I can say. It is an observation of trend.

What do you want me to say? I thought I was fairly thorough.

 

[grannymh]

Well, I have taken a hard look at chapters 11 and 12, and I see no reference to “Big Tent”. However, I am starting to understand fears a little more. If “Big Tent” means discontinuation of celebration of Eucharist, this is indeed of concern. I have never used the words that way, and if there is a legitimate source for such a definition, please bring it forth!

Please accept my truncating your information post.

Are you demonstrating the truth or the error in your statement in post 514?

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry Granny, I don’t get it. I’m not the Spirit, I am a speck of dust. I told you where I saw trends, but that is all I can say. It is an observation of trend.

What do you want me to say? I thought I was fairly thorough.

It would be nice if you would point out the error in what was posted in 514.

It is fascinating to me that Catholics see “trends” but not the connection to one of Reverend Richard Rohr’s assumptions which I spotted listening to one of his long ago links. I should have tried listening to the rest of the video, but I was insulted in addition to having some trouble with a video per se.

As I recall, Father Rohr mentioned that something said by one of his favorite philosophers or theologians was not declared a heresy. When one considers the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding properly defining Divine Revelation, one usually does not refer to good (name removed by moderator)ut as possible heresy. This is because it is common knowledge that not every word of every great thinker automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. Some real heresy has been offered to some councils; however, this is not what Father Rohr was referring to.

Naturally, every CAF member can oppose what I am seeing.

My impression is that, at least in the email I saw, Father Rohr is teaching about Original Sin in a different way from what has been properly defined by a major Ecumenical Catholic Council guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. In today’s society, truths can be seen as black and white. I do not intend to debate that. By setting the stage that all possible truths not used in a Church Council are not automatically considered heresy, there is the opening that today’s somewhat different teachings about Original Sin may not be considered heresy. Now truth can be tampered.

Because I learned how Catholic truths can build on each preceding truth, especially those from the disappearing beginning chapters of Genesis, I spotted the error in post 514. Current Catholics can do the same thing from common sense or logical thought.

I know that the above is difficult. Catholicism can be hard work. One explanation of the Big Tent theory is that it is a place where no one has to do hard thinking.

Eventually, I will use some of the above to evaluate the statement in post 514.

I apologize for typos. I am exhausted. If fact, I may be off CAF for a bit. Do keep the posts coming.

 

[OneSheep]

Please accept my truncating your information post.

Are you demonstrating the truth or the error in your statement in post 514?

Girl, you do know how to beat around the bush!

I think I am finally starting to get a grasp on what you are saying. You are thinking that there was an error in something I said in post 514? Please bring it forth. If you are concerned about the word “us”, I used it in terms of the Church, as founded by the apostles. If you are concerned about the word “revelation unfolding” it can be found in many Catholic writings; try googling it.

If you want something more concise about revelation unfolding, I refer again to the blog consolidating two sections of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings.

Women!

 

[grannymh]

When examining the flat out statement in post 514, here are some tools to use.
I mean, here are some questions to use.

Who? How? What? When? Where ? and Why?

It may not be necessary to answer all those questions; nonetheless, some of the answers will clarify what is actually being said. For example. What are we looking at? Is it a declarative sentence? Or is it a trend?

Because the basic message in post 514 has already been presented in a variety of ways, in this particular case the Who? can be given the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if someone has a direct quotation from Father Rohr or one of his followers, that would be interesting evidence.

From the point that the real Original Sin is the basic theme of this thread, it would be necessary that all six questions should be used.

 

[grannymh]

Quick clarification.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The apostles followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. Eventually, because there were different writings/opinions, the leaders of the Catholic Church used the “Council” method where the promised Holy Spirit guided the participants to Divine Truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Quick clarification.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The apostles followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. Eventually, because there were different writings/opinions, the leaders of the Catholic Church used the “Council” method where the promised Holy Spirit guided the participants to Divine Truth.

Exactly. And since “Councils” consist of people who interact with the populace of the world, reading theologians and experiencing what is happening among peoples, especially what is happening among Catholics, to some degree all of us participate in unfolding revelation.

There is no limit to where the Spirit works.

 

[grannymh]

Exactly. And since “Councils” consist of people who interact with the populace of the world, reading theologians and experiencing what is happening among peoples, especially what is happening among Catholics, to some degree all of us participate in unfolding revelation.

There is no limit to where the Spirit works.

Thank you for the above key point which I put in bold.

When "all of us participate" in unfolding revelation, then certainly you can tell me what your first step is in this statement from post 514.

"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you for the above key point which I put in bold.

When "all of us participate" in unfolding revelation, then certainly you can tell me what your first step is in this statement from post 514.

"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "

Okay, I for one am going to continue to proclaim the Good News, including that God always loves us, forgives us, understands us, and waits for us. And you?

Oh yes, there is much more, for example promoting what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in that section I sent you.

 

[simpleas]

I would debate the observation that the CAC is not a church in the broad sense. It certainly has its own personally picked teachings. While no one agrees with me, it has its own forms of converting people spiritually to itself. Interestingly, one can claim Catholicism while choosing CAC teachings over certain Catholic doctrines.

You might want to concerntrate on CAC, but I think this :

futurechurch.org/frequently-asked-questions

is what you would find closer to what you believe about the big tent church?

Take a look, let me know what you think, I receive emails from them every now and then, can’t even remember where I first came across them, but I signed up to keep up to date on what is happening in the USA.

 

[grannymh]

You might want to concerntrate on CAC, but I think this :

futurechurch.org/frequently-asked-questions

is what you would find closer to what you believe about the big tent church?

Take a look, let me know what you think, I receive emails from them every now and then, can’t even remember where I first came across them, but I signed up to keep up to date on what is happening in the USA.

This is an organization with specific projects. It is concerned about the priest shortage; thus it discusses women deacons. I saw two references to equality of women in the Church. And now I cannot find them. The issue of women priests would be an internal church issue. Technically, this group and others have the right to seek out information and to submit their reasons for this or that to leaders in the Church, including popes and bishops. Personally, I believe that women do not have to be priests in order to get into heaven.

This organization does not appear to be altering doctrines in order to attract members. Therefore, it would be somewhat difficult for this organization to qualify as a Big Tent church. I could be wrong…

Someone may say that there is a doctrine on all male priests. I am not sure how the doctrine is worded or how it is to be followed. I am not interested in that kind
of a “go nowhere” discussion. I am happy knowing that women do not have to be priests

At times, I have used Big Tent theory and maybe I should stick with “theory” so it is not confused with the welcoming Catholic Church. Technically, an established church of any denomination chooses to adopt the Big Tent theory where anything spiritual is o.k.

The important issue about CAC is that its founder alters Catholic teachings.

 

[grannymh]

Okay, I for one am going to continue to proclaim the Good News, including that God always loves us, forgives us, understands us, and waits for us. And you?

Oh yes, there is much more, for example promoting what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in that section I sent you.

And me? My current commitment is to properly explain Original Sin and the Catholic teachings around it. Unfortunately, Catholics in general, do not have the deep Catholic education which contains the proper protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth regarding the declaration of Catholic doctrines. This is why post 514 is so very important to understand.

Post 514 is a reflection of the bad idea that different opinions about topics such as Original Sin are permitted in the Catholic Church. In its own way, it reflects the power of a popular public speaker/writer to dismiss the first three necessary chapters in Genesis.

I do wish that the CAF members who receive e-mail messages from Reverend Richard Rohr would share with me some of their favorites. As evinced in the early part of this thread, I am a journalist who protects the confidentiality of my sources of information.

And you…
I pray that you will continue to proclaim the real truth of the real Catholic Church.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

This is an organization with specific projects. It is concerned about the priest shortage; thus it discusses women deacons. I saw two references to equality of women in the Church. And now I cannot find them. The issue of women priests would be an internal church issue. Technically, this group and others have the right to seek out information and to submit their reasons for this or that to leaders in the Church, including popes and bishops. Personally, I believe that women do not have to be priests in order to get into heaven.

This organization does not appear to be altering doctrines in order to attract members. Therefore, it would be somewhat difficult for this organization to qualify as a Big Tent church. I could be wrong…

Someone may say that there is a doctrine on all male priests. I am not sure how the doctrine is worded or how it is to be followed. I am not interested in that kind
of a “go nowhere” discussion. I am happy knowing that women do not have to be priests

At times, I have used Big Tent theory and maybe I should stick with “theory” so it is not confused with the welcoming Catholic Church. Technically, an established church of any denomination chooses to adopt the Big Tent theory where anything spiritual is o.k.

The important issue about CAC is that its founder alters Catholic teachings.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I do not see where the founder of CAC has altered Catholic teachings, they remain the same, I read an opinion on how we can look at certain teachings that we find difficult to understand in a way that is understandable.
Recently I have come across a new way of thinking, something along the lines :
God is not all powerful, God is all vulnerable…because he came as a helpless baby in a manger.
There is thinking behind this that I’ve yet to learn, but I think the message will always be the same…God is love.
We all just have different ways of grasping what this means.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for your thoughts.

I do not see where the founder of CAC has altered Catholic teachings, they remain the same, I read an opinion on how we can look at certain teachings that we find difficult to understand in a way that is understandable.
Recently I have come across a new way of thinking, something along the lines :
God is not all powerful, God is all vulnerable…because he came as a helpless baby in a manger.
There is thinking behind this that I’ve yet to learn, but I think the message will always be the same…God is love.
We all just have different ways of grasping what this means.

Apparently, it is now correct to trash the first three essential chapters of Sacred Scripture. No wonder some Catholics have no clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches.


Apparently, each Catholic has now been given the power to change God’s Divine Revelation. Looks like one can now do whatever evil they freely choose because somehow love accepts the State of Mortal Sin as a perfect friendship relationship between a Divine Creator and a creature who thinks she or he is equal to a Divine Creator.


Now God is is not all powerful, God is all vulnerable because a Divine Person has the power to assume human nature.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is now being presented as the new emerging or progressive Christianity.


Now, I will continue to accept the real Catholic teachings.

 

[grannymh]

When looking for an explanation of Original Sin …

We find a version for every day in the year. Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who tamper with old-time Catholic teachings and then convince some Catholics to essentially attack the Catholic Church with false teachings.

Here is an interesting statement which stands on its own. Context or source is not needed to spot the glaring error which is in bold.
“Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit.** And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation**. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important.”

The Catholic Church considers that all Divine Revelation is found in Jesus Christ. And “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (CCC 66)

Apparently, Catholic promoters of non-Catholic teachings, consider us dumb because we miss the time difference between the living human life assumed by Christ and our own immersion in daily struggles. Thus, their thoughts about us being dumb about Catholicism leads to more non-Catholic teachings. Unfortunately, CCC 66 is not on the tip of every person’s tongue.
**CCC 66 **“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
One of the meanings of Christian economy is that it is a reference to the establishment of the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. A proper definition is found in the CCC Glossary, “Economy of Salvation (Divine Economy)” page 876.

"And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation." The Holy Spirit does guide us in the understanding of Catholic doctrines properly defined and duly declared in major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils. The major doctrines surrounding Original Sin were defined in proper Church Councils centuries ago. It should be obvious that us are not living back then.

But …
The Catholic Reformers can say that unfolding means learning. That does make sense. However, what is being learned is not true Catholic doctrines. Apparently, some Catholics are so thrilled about being able to understand revelation according to their own modern preferences, that they miss attacks on the Catholic Church.

 

[simpleas]

I’ve just come home, checked emails and there is a meditation there, not sure if you still receive them but I’ll put it up :

Original Blessing
Wednesday, January 4, 2017

As we rebuild Christianity from the bottom up, let’s start “in the beginning” with the very first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1. The first image in the Judeo-Christian Bible reveals a creative, compassionate God: “God’s Spirit hovered over the water” (Genesis 1:2). The word “hovered” is the same word used to describe a brood hen, lovingly watching over her young, warming the eggs and protecting the hatchlings. The Bible begins with clear hints of growth, development, and evolution. God is a dynamic creator, a verb more than a noun.

Looking at Creation in progress, “God saw that it was good” five times and “found it very good” after the sixth day (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). We all need to know that this wonderful thing called life is going somewhere and somewhere good. It is going someplace good because it came from goodness—a beginning of “original blessing” instead of “original sin.” Matthew Fox illustrated this rather well in his groundbreaking book, Original Blessing. [1]

For some reason, most Christian theology seems to start with Genesis 3—which features Adam and Eve—what Augustine would centuries later call “original sin.” When you start with the negative or with a problem, it’s not surprising that you end with Armageddon and Apocalypse. When you start with a punitive, critical, exclusionary God, it’s not surprising that you see the crucifixion as “substitutionary atonement” where Jesus takes the punishment that this angry God intended for us.

That is not what Franciscans and many other Christians believe. And this is not something the loving Abba Jesus would do. Because the belief in substitutionary atonement is so common and so problematic, we will explore its alternative—at-one-ment—in depth later this year.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It didn’t need changing. God has organically, inherently loved what God created from the moment God created it. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God.
As our image of God changes, our image of God’s creation, including ourselves, changes as well. Jesus shows us what it looks like for God to be incarnate in humanity. He holds together the human and the divine so that we might follow him and do the same.

Jesus shows us that the pattern of everything is death and resurrection. Jesus is the archetypal pattern for every life, including yours and mine. There will be suffering and death along with love, joy, and resurrection. Most of us are so resistant to accepting suffering that Jesus walked through it himself and said, “Follow me.” He showed us that on the other side of suffering is transformation. Love is stronger than death. The full, vibrant life that Jesus offers is big enough to include even its opposite: death. Unless a religion directly faces the issues of suffering and death, it is rather useless religion. Jesus holds these big questions front and center.

Gateway to Silence:
Create in me a new heart, O God.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by simpleas

Jesus shows us that the pattern of everything is death and resurrection.

From the meditation above, not my own words.

But I would like to discuss this, yet we are in the scripture forum.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by simpleas in post 748
"Jesus shows us that the pattern of everything is death and resurrection. " is from Reverend Richard Rohr’s daily meditation.

From the meditation above, not my own words.

But I would like to discuss this, yet we are in the scripture forum.

That sounds good to me.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve just come home, checked emails and there is a meditation there, not sure if you still receive them but I’ll put it up :

…

Original Blessing
Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Oof.

I did see that meditation today and read it. Fr. Rohr really skirts the edge by quoting a person who eventually was forbidden from teaching theology even though the book Original Blessing nor any other of his books were deemed heretical when investigated.

If we use the word “origin” for what came first, then we were truly originally blessed, as shown in Genesis 1. But then came this:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

So while we were originally blessed, originally holy, the conception of a distorted image wounded our holiness; as awareness plays a huge role in diminishing holiness. So is “original sin” an original state, was it first? No, it is not, we were originally blessed with original holiness according to CCC399.

Fr. Rohr expands on the foundation of original blessedness, as Christ Himself, Revelation, removes the distortions.