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.
Good Morning Granny,
There are times when there is a bit of confusion about the Catholic Church. In fairness to readers, there are times when even a bit of confusion needs to be clarified.
Keep in mind that before 1991, there was no CCC. Within the CCC we have this:
Before 1991, there was the Baltimore Catechism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

My personal guess is that this bit of confusion – “Keep in mind that before 1991, there was no CCC.” – happened because not all Catholics are aware of the difference between a local Catholic Catechism and an universal Catholic Catechism.
 
Yes the use of ordinary man is very unusual to a Catholic, I find it strange that the author uses certain terms to explain things. He does refer to Jesus becoming the Christ in some work, which I didn’t understand.
🙂

"Jesus becoming the Christ " refers to a type of heresy which I would consider as being part of modern Arianism.

The director of a Catholic Parish Religious Education Program explained “Jesus becoming the Christ” to me when I became a member of her parish. Some years later, a new Pastor referred to the discussion of “Jesus becoming the Christ” during a homily. My apology. I could not follow what he was trying to say. He could have been trying to explain the error.

My current guess is that “Jesus becoming the Christ” cleverly implies that Jesus was not fully Divine at the time of the Incarnation.
 
40.png
OneSheep:
Yes, do you see what unfolding revelation looks like? Does automatic excommunication in itself reflect a God who loves unconditionally? Does it reflect a God who forgives all? Does it reflect Christ, who ate with outcasts?
The obvious problem here is the denial of the first three Genesis chapters which present the real Divine Revelation not the present mumbo jumbo.
 
Yes, do you see what unfolding revelation looks like? Does automatic excommunication in itself reflect a God who loves unconditionally? Does it reflect a God who forgives all? Does it reflect Christ, who ate with outcasts?
Here is my personal answer to the above questions.

The obvious problem here is the denial of the first three Genesis chapters which present the real Divine Revelation not the present mumbo jumbo.
 
"Jesus becoming the Christ " refers to a type of heresy which I would consider as being part of modern Arianism.

The director of a Catholic Parish Religious Education Program explained “Jesus becoming the Christ” to me when I became a member of her parish. Some years later, a new Pastor referred to the discussion of “Jesus becoming the Christ” during a homily. My apology. I could not follow what he was trying to say. He could have been trying to explain the error.

My current guess is that “Jesus becoming the Christ” cleverly implies that Jesus was not fully Divine at the time of the Incarnation.
Continuing my research,

I found another meaning for “Jesus becoming the Christ.” which sounds entirely different from what I observed years ago. What I remember is that Jesus found out that He was the Christ at His Baptism. This approach cleverly implies that Jesus was not fully Divine at the time of the Incarnation.

“Becoming” is the most interesting word cleverly used. There is still the question–If Jesus became the Christ at some later point in his life or death, What was He at the Incarnation?

The two questions are:
What was Jesus at the Incarnation?
Why do we say that Jesus became something later?

And a third question. Is it time to look for deeper meaning or deeper intention in the writings of some popular public speakers/writers who…?
 
***The letter U is for the Uniqueness ***
***found in the first three historical ***
***chapters ***of Sacred Scripture.

I worry about those people who huff and puff about tampering with this or that in the Catholic Church.

What are these “wolves” as in the children’s story thinking when they blow away the first three chapters of Sacred Scripture? What do they do with an allegory, mythical, figurative, not real Creator? What happens to the Catholic Church? That answer is easy. The Catholic Church is melted into a doctrine free organization filled with human love.

Seriously, it is the Creator in Genesis 1: 1 Who in Genesis 1: 27 created mankind in His image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them. And when the first two people heard this almighty Creator walking in Genesis 3: 8, they hid themselves because their unique friendship relationship with God was broken.

One way to understand the uniqueness in the early Genesis scenario is that it is the unique evidence for the real Catholic Church which has unalterable real doctrines to be understood and loved.

Comments?
Questions?

To be continued.
 
Yet recently we have heard that the Pope has allowed priests to forgive the sin of abortion for those who ask, so they would no longer be latae sententiae.
Huh? No, that’s not what it implies. I think you’re misunderstanding the issue here.

The pope’s statement means that priests can lift the excommunication (and therefore, are able to immediately grant absolution) in the case of a procured abortion that happens to result in an excommunication. Not all do.
Latae sententiae means that the person becomes automatically excommunicated as soon as the offence is committed.
Umm… almost.

It means that, when excommunication applies, it applies without a formal document from the Church (i.e., ‘automatically’). It doesn’t mean that, in every case of procured abortion, the sin automatically results in an excommunication.

Per your recourse to CCC 2272, please allow me to quote it here: “‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ … subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.”

When the conditions are not met, there is no excommunication.
I’m not sure what excommunication actually means, does it mean one can not fully participate in church life or they can not participate at all.
It means that the person cannot receive any sacraments until the penalty has been lifted.
Will the words of CCC 2272 need to be changed now so people know they can be forgiven of a serious sin by the priest, and not automatically excommunicated?
No. This does not change the latae sentatiae excommunication; just the process by which the excommunication – when it exists – may be lifted.
 
Huh? No, that’s not what it implies. I think you’re misunderstanding the issue here.

The pope’s statement means that priests can lift the excommunication (and therefore, are able to immediately grant absolution) in the case of a procured abortion that happens to result in an excommunication. Not all do.

Umm… almost.

It means that, when excommunication applies, it applies without a formal document from the Church (i.e., ‘automatically’). It doesn’t mean that, in every case of procured abortion, the sin automatically results in an excommunication.

Per your recourse to CCC 2272, please allow me to quote it here: “‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ … subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.”

When the conditions are not met, there is no excommunication.

It means that the person cannot receive any sacraments until the penalty has been lifted.

No. This does not change the latae sentatiae excommunication; just the process by which the excommunication – when it exists – may be lifted.
👍👍👍👍👍
 
Originally Posted by Gorgias
Huh? No, that’s not what it implies. I think you’re misunderstanding the issue here.
The pope’s statement means that priests can lift the excommunication (and therefore, are able to immediately grant absolution) in the case of a procured abortion that happens to result in an excommunication. Not all do.
As far as I was aware, Priests were allowed to forgive the sin of abortion.
Vatican City, Sep 1, 2015 / 06:33 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In a new set of pastoral guidelines for the upcoming Holy Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has made some significant moves, allowing all priests to forgive the sin of abortion and granting SSPX priests the faculty to forgive sins.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/all-priests-will-be-able-forgive-sin-of-abortion-during-jubilee-for-mercy-11726/
Umm… almost.
It means that, when excommunication applies, it applies without a formal document from the Church (i.e., ‘automatically’). It doesn’t mean that, in every case of procured abortion, the sin automatically results in an excommunication.
Per your recourse to CCC 2272, please allow me to quote it here: “‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ … subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.”
When the conditions are not met, there is no excommunication.
*Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”. *

*The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”
*

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

It seems pretty clear what latae sententiae means.
For someone like me, I just check what the word means and when it says automatic excommunication I take that at face value. I wish the CCC would have explained it better.
Thanks for your help.
 
The Creator is real; the account of His creation of the universe is allegorical. 🤷
Yes, in the first three truth-filled chapters of our beloved Sacred Scripture, God the Creator is powerfully real. How do we know this? We listen to the wisdom of the Catholic Church.

I am not sure if wordsmiths still exist. In the old days, the “Genesis” account of God’s actions in creating the unique union of the material and spiritual world would not be considered allegorical. This unique union, obviously in human nature, would be considered real in itself. (CCC 355 and following). The word allegorical can be used to avoid some tough issues which totally annoy the few Catholics who are considering rebuilding Christianity from the bottom up. This rebuilding idea is popular because humans naturally like to be the captain of the ship, especially when different proposals (dropping those first three crazy chapters) are offered without charge.

In brief (this granny has a terrible time with that foreign concept) would you be interested in walking in the sandals of the author? What intellectual tools did he have besides inspiration?

CCC 390 correctly explains the use of figurative language. Using figurative language which properly affirms an event at the beginning of human history is not equal to an allegory. In my opinion, an allegory assumes that the truth is somewhere…
In my opinion, the Genesis author flat out faced the truth and presented it in words.

Are you willing to search for the scary truth in the depths of the first three amazing chapters in Sacred Scripture?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Yes, in the first three truth-filled chapters of our beloved Sacred Scripture, God the Creator is powerfully real.
No doubt about that!
In the old days, the “Genesis” account of God’s actions in creating the unique union of the material and spiritual world would not be considered allegorical.
Not sure which “old days” you’re talking about, but in his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, St Augustine expounded on the dangers of asserting a scientific and historical literalistic interpretation of Genesis in the face of scientific and historical data which contradicts such an interpretation.
The word allegorical can be used to avoid some tough issues which totally annoy the few Catholics who are considering rebuilding Christianity from the bottom up.
Although there are Catholics who wish to rebuild Catholicism in their own image and likeness, they are not the only ones who espouse the notion of an allegorical interpretation of the initial chapters of Genesis. An approach to ‘allegory’ which places it solely at the feet of those who hold unorthodox views is one-dimensional and inaccurate, IMHO. 🤷
This rebuilding idea is popular because humans naturally like to be the captain of the ship, especially when different proposals (dropping those first three crazy chapters) are offered without charge.
Who wants to “drop the first three chapters” of Genesis? You’re mischaracterizing. Wishing to drop an overly literalistic interpretation is not the same as dropping the chapters wholesale. After all, that would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water!
would you be interested in walking in the sandals of the author? What intellectual tools did he have besides inspiration?
He had an understanding of the context of the world in which he lived. After all, he cooperated with inspiration, and wasn’t transformed into a zombie by it. Therefore, his account was an amalgam of inspiration and his authorship – and, by the power of God, the human author’s literary skills did not obscure the message God wished His Scripture to communicate!
CCC 390 correctly explains the use of figurative language. Using figurative language which properly affirms an event at the beginning of human history is not equal to an allegory.
That’s an interesting tack I’ve never seen before. Are you asserting that ‘allegory’ isn’t “figurative language”? Or, are you asserting that the “figurative language” here isn’t allegorical, but falls within a different description and/or genre of literature?
In my opinion, an allegory assumes that the truth is somewhere…
Of course it does! And it expresses it in a particular way (distinct from news reportage or historical narrative)!
 
No doubt about that!

Not sure which “old days” you’re talking about, but in his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, St Augustine expounded on the dangers of asserting a scientific and historical literalistic interpretation of Genesis in the face of scientific and historical data which contradicts such an interpretation.
I am thinking about the dead generation which learned basic, foundational, Catholic doctrines (first three Genesis chapters) before opening a Bible.

As for our friend St. Augustine, I try to stay away from scientific interpretations because some, not all, Catholics need to catch up with natural science. As for literalistic interpretations, I find that some, not all, persons consider that interpretations of unfolding revelation are equal and no one is needed to evaluate the truthfulness of interpretations. I like examining historical interpretations because the events at the beginning of human history are real. I do not give dates.
Although there are Catholics who wish to rebuild Catholicism in their own image and likeness, they are not the only ones who espouse the notion of an allegorical interpretation of the initial chapters of Genesis. An approach to ‘allegory’ which places it solely at the feet of those who hold unorthodox views is one-dimensional and inaccurate, IMHO. 🤷
Previously, in this thread we have been discussing e-mail meditations from a very popular public active Catholic priest, Reverend Richard Rohr. We have discussed his views in a respective informational manner. It is important to be aware of various views/movements, especially the ones Pope Pius XII addressed in paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The Father Rohr e-mail meditation I was given, is this famous one about the “fly in the ointment”. myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

Center for Action and Contemplation. cac.org/
Who wants to “drop the first three chapters” of Genesis? You’re mischaracterizing. Wishing to drop an overly literalistic interpretation is not the same as dropping the chapters wholesale. After all, that would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water!
Who wants to "drop the first three chapters of Genesis? I would guess that a conservative answer would be around .3% of CAF participants in a selected forums on a day when the interest in Adam and Eve is very popular. I could guess about our guests. The whole program of Father Rohr appears void of a proper Catholic teaching on the first three essential chapters of Genesis.

The following comment refers to the author of the first three amazing chapters of Genesis.
He had an understanding of the context of the world in which he lived. After all, he cooperated with inspiration, and wasn’t transformed into a zombie by it. Therefore, his account was an amalgam of inspiration and his authorship – and, by the power of God, the human author’s literary skills did not obscure the message God wished His Scripture to communicate!
My observation is that the author had two eyes to observe the workings of the universe including human nature and a rational brain to grasp the religious/spiritual teaching of his nation.

This comment refers to CCC 390.
That’s an interesting tack I’ve never seen before. Are you asserting that ‘allegory’ isn’t “figurative language”? Or, are you asserting that the “figurative language” here isn’t allegorical, but falls within a different description and/or genre of literature?
Allegory usually is a physical representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters or events in a narrative. Figurative is on a simpler level. Figurative language consists of sounds. The sounds, which are the figurative language, are sufficient to identify an actual event which is already real in itself.
 
As far as I was aware, Priests were allowed to forgive the sin of abortion.
Yep; always have been.

However, if a person is under the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication, canon law insists that the penalty first be lifted before a person would be able to receive the sacraments. This is what’s in play here. That ability to lift the penalty was reserved to the bishop. Some bishops (including, as far as I know, the bishops of the U.S.) delegated that right to their priests. Therefore, priests in the U.S. had already been able to lift the penalty and then give absolution, without recourse to any other process or authority. The notion that “now, priests can forgive abortion” is overly simplified, to the point of being untrue. The real notion is “now, no priest has to wait for someone else to lift the excommunication before he can forgive abortion.”
*Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”. *
Fair enough. However, not all sins which might incur a latae sentatiae excommunication always incur one. You know that, right?
For someone like me, I just check what the word means and when it says automatic excommunication I take that at face value.
The problem is that “latae sententiae” doesn’t mean “always applied”, but rather “when applied, applied automatically”. And, without clarification, the wrong part can be mistakenly thought to be ‘automatic’ – that is, it might be understood that the adjudication is automatic, rather than the mode of application.
Thanks for your help.
You’re welcome!
 
Yep; always have been.

However, if a person is under the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication, canon law insists that the penalty first be lifted before a person would be able to receive the sacraments. This is what’s in play here. That ability to lift the penalty was reserved to the bishop. Some bishops (including, as far as I know, the bishops of the U.S.) delegated that right to their priests. Therefore, priests in the U.S. had already been able to lift the penalty and then give absolution, without recourse to any other process or authority. The notion that “now, priests can forgive abortion” is overly simplified, to the point of being untrue. The real notion is “now, no priest has to wait for someone else to lift the excommunication before he can forgive abortion.”

Fair enough. However, not all sins which might incur a latae sentatiae excommunication always incur one. You know that, right?

The problem is that “latae sententiae” doesn’t mean “always applied”, but rather “when applied, applied automatically”. And, without clarification, the wrong part can be mistakenly thought to be ‘automatic’ – that is, it might be understood that the adjudication is automatic, rather than the mode of application.

You’re welcome!
Thanks.

It’s all a little too legalistic for me.
 
It’s all a little too legalistic for me.
Thanks to our bishops and our pope, it’s a lot easier now. Not “let me ask you twenty questions in the confessional, in order to determine whether the penalty of excommunication applies”, but now, simply, “if the penalty of excommunication applies, I lift it; and I absolve you from your sins…”. 👍 :cool:
 
Allegory usually is a physical representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters or events in a narrative. Figurative is on a simpler level. Figurative language consists of sounds. The sounds, which are the figurative language, are sufficient to identify an actual event which is already real in itself.
The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology is helpful:

"How are we, sophisticated, 21st-century Catholics that we are, supposed to read the account of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace in Genesis 3 - with its fable-like setting, its talking trickster snake, its gullible couple, oddly named trees, and forbidden fruit?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us some good advice here:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (see no. 390).

What’s the Catechism getting at here? First, the story in Genesis 3 is written in “figurative language” - it’s more like poetry than journalism, more like a painting than a documentary film.

Nevertheless, the story “affirms” an actual event that indeed “took place” at the beginning of human history. What’s more, that event, “the original fault” of Adam and Eve, forever “marked” human history.

We can’t, then, read Genesis 3 like we’re reading a newspaper. But we can’t read it like it’s a myth or a fairy tale or a fable - as if it’s about something that never happened.

Scholars tell us that Genesis is best understood as an example of the ancient literary style know as mashal - “a riddle” or a “proverb” in which there are layers of double meaning.

And when we read Genesis 3 closely, we find the story turns on a number of tricky passages, and words filled with multiple meanings: life, death, wise, trees."

The above comes from
stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-creation-fall-and-promise
 
Thanks.

It’s all a little too legalistic for me.
The bible tells us that God judges by the heart, while man judges by appearances. While God wants *us *to get better at judging by the heart as well we don’t always have a choice or the ability, due to our limitations. So laws and legal systems and guidelines are important for us here on earth so we can have basic ideas about the seriousness of a particular act’s nature, for example. Heck, if not for the voice of the Church out there in the public forum consistently affirming that abortion is wrong-and explaining why it’s wrong-some of us may not even give much consideration to the matter to begin with.

But the real point is that we need to know that some acts are so inherently disordered or wrong that *we may’ve already excommunicated ourselves from God *simply by virtue of committing them, regardless of whether or not the Church even knows about it or has acted formally on the matter with the individual involved. At the same time, however, the Church has produced moral teachings that acknowledge that, in order for a person to be culpable, full knowledge and deliberate consent must be present when a seriously bad act (of grave matter) is committed. Intention and circumstances play their roles, as a separate teaching on morality informs us. So, as human affairs go, it can be a bit messy and complicated, not as clear-cut as would be the case if God simply spoke His mind on the matter directly. We have to sort things out here, with His guidance rather than dominant control.
 
The bible tells us that God judges by the heart, while man judges by appearances. While God wants *us *to get better at judging by the heart as well we don’t always have a choice or the ability, due to our limitations. So laws and legal systems and guidelines are important for us here on earth so we can have basic ideas about the seriousness of a particular act’s nature, for example. Heck, if not for the voice of the Church out there in the public forum consistently affirming that abortion is wrong-and explaining why it’s wrong-some of us may not even give much consideration to the matter to begin with.

But the real point is that we need to know that some acts are so inherently disordered or wrong that *we may’ve already excommunicated ourselves from God *simply by virtue of committing them, regardless of whether or not the Church even knows about it or has acted formally on the matter with the individual involved. At the same time, however, the Church has produced moral teachings that acknowledge that, in order for a person to be culpable, full knowledge and deliberate consent must be present when a seriously bad act (of grave matter) is committed. Intention and circumstances play their roles, as a separate teaching on morality informs us. So, as human affairs go, it can be a bit messy and complicated, not as clear-cut as would be the case if God simply spoke His mind on the matter directly. We have to sort things out here, with His guidance rather than dominant control.
My misunderstanding wasn’t about why we have rules and moral teaching, but about the word latæ sententiæ. That it seems to mean automatic excommunication :

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us some good advice here:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (see no. 390).

What’s the Catechism getting at here? First, the story in Genesis 3 is written in “figurative language” - it’s more like poetry than journalism, more like a painting than a documentary film.
What I put in bold is the most famous small error (nobody really cares) in Catholic Catechism history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top