Non Literal Creation Interpretation

[Vouthon]

I don’t know of any Church teaching document that we MUST accept that the result of the fall as leading to PHYSICAL death rather than the coming into the world or MORTAL death… death of the soul. Especially in the light that there is no theological objection to evolution.

I would agree with you that other explanations are certainly plausible, however traditional Catholic theology does teach that while death for plant life and animals is natural, for humans it was not God’s intended means of us leaving the world and going to Him because man is a union of body and soul, therefore any division in his nature is an evil - and God cannot create nor author evil.

I am sympathetic to the idea that “death” only ever refers to spiritual death, however there is theological issues that would need to be overcome and/or qualified for that not to be in error. I’m not convinced it can be. I’m not suggesting like Aelred that it is impossible, however it would need to be far better explained.

Certainly Catholicism allows for development of doctrine and understanding of revealed truth but far more theological study and logic would have to be worked out for this theory to satisfy me even minimally.

How can it ever be “good” that man is separated from his body?

 

[Vouthon]

Before the Fall, Adam lived in a place God had Created for him a state that was not in Time/Space, where earth is.

Sister Julia

I would like further clarification of what you mean by this. How could “Adam”, a created being, exist in a “state beyond time and space”? We do not believe in pre-existence of souls in the Catholic Church. That is part of the heresy of Origenism and it is heretical, although I firmly believe that you are not referring to it, even though it could appear that way and I’m uncertain as to what you mean. Could you please explain to me what you mean?

I get the sense of Adam existing in a state of continual communion with God, uninterrupted, prior to the Fall however it would obviously have took place on earth, not “beyond time/space” which seems to suggest some form of “pre-existence” which is impossible.

To be fair, mystics taught a very nuanced understanding of man - and everything - existing in the mind God from all eternity. This mystical doctrine, nonetheless, does not mean that man as an individual soul or person pre-existed his birth in time. Our soul came to exist in time the very same moment in which we were conceived in our mother’s womb. This is de fide in Catholicism. Rather it means that man existed as an idea - without essence but with potential being.

This teaching is one of the most difficult in Catholic mysticism. Even a slight misunderstanding of it, despite its complete orthodoxy, could lead one into the murky bardo-realms of heterodox theology. It is important to understand this teaching since it is the very essence of the spiritual path as conceived by many of the medieval mystics of a more intellectual and speculative character. It is called the theology of Exemplarism and it has a biblical, Augustinian and Neoplatonic origin.

The Rhineland school of Catholic mysticism taught that human beings preexist in God’s mind in unity and believed that the goal of the mystic path was the return of the created spirit into God; the re-union of our creaturely being in time with our uncreated ‘self’ as known within the mind of the Godhead from all eternity.

To achieve this sought after “return” or “breakthrough”, Tauler taught that man must imitate Christ’s “self-emptying” when he descended into time and assumed human nature through the path of detachment from sense pleasures both interior and exterior.

Blessed Ruusbroec taught that the highest, third level of union with God is the “union without difference”, in which, “the contemplative passes beyond the soul’s summit, plunging into the modless abyss in which the Trinity gives way to its essential Unity. Bound to the Trinity the contemplative is able to perceive the preexisting oneness of all things in God” (ref. Dan Cohn-Sherbok).

Frank Tobin gave a good description of this highly mystical doctrine in his introduction to his translation of Henry suso “Exemplar”:

“…What then are creatures? In chapter 3 Suso replies by describing their twofold existence. In a sense they have existed eternally in God who is their Exemplar. They existed as ideas in the Divine Mind. Truth then states the startling but inevitable conclusion that follows from the eternal existence of creatures, “All creatures in God are God”…One is to become free of oneself as one was before one “flowed out” from God. In other words, the mystical goal to be striven for is described in terms of a return to the way of existing one enjoyed when one was nothing else but an idea in the Mind of God. This return to God, or breakthrough, is viewed as superior to one’s flowing out into independent creaturely existence…”

Simone Weil, a 20th century Catholic mystic who died in 1943, compared our “breakthrough” out of our creaturely existence in time and return to our pre-existent oneness with God as an idea in the Divine Mind, in terms of the metaphor of “gift”. God gave us the ‘gift’ of an independent existence from Himself, as we “flowed out” from him as an idea and potential being in eternity, into our separate, creaturely “coming to be” in time. We can do to things with this gift. We can keep it wholly for ourselves and wear it out, until it becomes destroyed over time. Or we can give it back to God. Simone says that this gift should be “returned”, selflessly, by the individual soul to the “giver” out of love of Him. In so doing we relinquish our “possesion” of our independent being in time and return to our awareness of eternal existence in God as an idea. Thus it is not possible to become “one with God” in every respect as we were before creation. We will always now, after our independent existence in time, remain a creature and retain an awareness of ourself as a creature. And yet we will, at the same time, be aware of our eternal existence in God from before all time.

Blessed Ruusbroec teaches that union with God involves an eternal and simultaenous “inflow and out-flow”, in which we recognize all at once our eternal, pre-existing oneness with God and our existence as an independent creature as a result of our birth in time. He claims that this is similar to “breathing”.

Exemplarism such as the above is prominent in the works by Augustine and Anselm and finds precise expression in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who stated that: "[in one sense things] are in God through their own intelligible natures, which in God are the same as the divine essence. Hence things, as they exist in God in that way, are the divine essence’.

Thus James A Wisemann, a scholar of Blessed Ruusbroec’s writings, notes:

**"…As regards Ruusbroec’s expressions about a mystic’s felt oneness with God, this background of exemplarism means that it is not really a matter of attaining such union for the first time, but returning to a oneness that was ours primordially…" **

 

[Blacksword]

Here’s something else for you to think about, from a footnote to letter #211 (14 October 1958, when Tolkien was supposedly writing the Athrabeth):

Brilliant! I was going to chime in referring to Tolkien’s work and exposition on the meaning of Death as something to be embraced in the beginning, as a coronation rather than an end, for Man before the Fall, but you beat me to it, and thoroughly outlined this as well.

St. Paul and the Genesis accounts could well be read to refer to spiritual death, loss of communion with God, not mere physical death which was always part of the plan. This can in my view be embraced without leading to one poster’s concern about becoming uncaring of or dismissive of death. Rather, we can hold this and still properly mourn for the death of our loved ones for the proper reasons to so mourn: the resulting, but hopefully only temporary, separation of them from us, our missing them in the remaining years of our lives, and the pain of the physical decline and ultimate separation of the soul from the body, though again one we hope and strive to trust is temporary. We can even properly mourn aging itself as a creeping corruption of the body which should rightly be understood to be itself also a crowning and beautiful creation of God. Indeed, the ravages of Father Time may be held to be more a perversion of the original path for us than the mere moment of physical death itself. A good discussion!

 

[Vouthon]

Brilliant! I was going to chime in referring to Tolkien’s work and exposition on the meaning of Death as something to be embraced in the beginning, as a coronation rather than an end, for Man before the Fall, but you beat me to it, and thoroughly outlined this as well.

St. Paul and the Genesis accounts could well be read to refer to spiritual death, loss of communion with God, not mere physical death which was always part of the plan. This can in my view be embraced without leading to one poster’s concern about becoming uncaring of or dismissive of death. Rather, we can hold this and still properly mourn for the death of our loved ones for the proper reasons to so mourn: the resulting, but hopefully only temporary, separation of them from us, our missing them in the remaining years of our lives, and the pain of the physical decline and ultimate separation of the soul from the body, though again one we hope and strive to trust is temporary. We can even properly mourn aging itself as a creeping corruption of the body which should rightly be understood to be itself also a crowning and beautiful creation of God. Indeed, the ravages of Father Time may be held to be more a perversion of the original path for us than the mere moment of physical death itself. A good discussion!

Thank you for your very illuminating post brother Blacksword

You see, its rather complex because Tolkien reflects two opposing views in his writings:

1. Physical death, according to Elven understanding, as being part of the natural course of existence for man and not a punishment for sin
2. Physical death as a direct result of the Fall whereas pre-Fall man was destined not to die but to be “assumed” body and soul into eternity and transformed into a glorified body on a higer level. He suggests that men understood themselves as being originally “immortal” but Lord Finrod corrects the mortal Andreth, in suggesting that this “immortality” could not have meant undying life on earth but rather assumption, leaving the universe without death and through freewill.

He obviously was troubled by how no.1 could fit in with his Catholic faith and so worked out no.2.

It is an interesting debate and I really must admit that I don’t know, people in this thread have given very good conflicting answers, however it is traditional Catholic teaching that man is a unity of body and soul and that the separation of these two is an evil stemming from the Fall.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In my opinion, there is not much use in speculating how things would have been without the Fall, or what God’s “original plan” was that was marred by sin.

The fact is that there is a practically infinite number of possible histories the universe could theoretically have been given, but only one that God ever intended to actualize. That one is the one that actually happened, in which man sinned and is subject to physical and spiritual death as a consequence, in which Christ came and died and rose again in response to this disaster, and in which we also will be resurrected. God never efficaciously willed any other history, because any other history would be inferior.

 

[edwest2]

Tolkien? Seriously?

"The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers library

So, Catholics have three choices: a literal 6 day Creation, or 6,000 or so years, or billions of years.

Since so many here regard a literal interpretation of Creation as verboten (forbidden), I’ll just stop here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Vouthon]

In my opinion, there is not much use in speculating how things would have been without the Fall, or what God’s “original plan” was that was marred by sin.

The fact is that there is a practically infinite number of possible histories the universe could theoretically have been given, but only one that God ever intended to actualize. That one is the one that actually happened, in which man sinned and is subject to physical and spiritual death as a consequence, in which Christ came and died and rose again in response to this disaster, and in which we also will be resurrected. God never efficaciously willed any other history, because any other history would be inferior.

I agree

Obviously what happened, the universe that unfolded, was permitted by the will of God - although he never directly created evil or human death (and I’ll leave that undefined).

However people I believe are simply reflecting on the nature of the Fall and its resulting consequence. I do not think it is “wrong” to imagine what may have been since the Fall was still a free choice that God brought greater good out of (the incarnation, making it a “happy fall” in some respects despite its evil). Yes he foreknew this history, knew it would happen and actualized it, however he did still create us in time a certain way, which we “lost” at the Fall.

Posters in this thread are trying to ascertain what that certain way was.

 

[Vouthon]

Tolkien? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. While obviously no theologian this devoutly Catholic fantasy writer worked out a fictional philosophy of death which he related to actual theology through a discussion of human nature and that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He spoke of the Fall and rendered a fictional version of it for his Middle-earth mythology.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Tolkien? Seriously?

"The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers library

So, Catholics have three choices: a literal 6 day Creation, or 6,000 or so years, or billions of years.

Since so many here regard a literal interpretation of Creation as verboten (forbidden), I’ll just stop here.

Peace,
Ed

I’m a little confused. The tract (or whatever it is) does not support but if anything contradicts the conclusion you draw from it. Unless there is a portion of the original that you have not included which would change the meaning, it seems to support the possibility of a non-chronological interpretation of Genesis 1.

Certainly we must accept that there was an original pair of humans that constitute our first parents, and any interpretation of polygeny that denies this must be rejected. This is quite a different issue from interpreting the six days of creation.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m a little confused. The tract (or whatever it is) does not support but if anything contradicts the conclusion you draw from it. Unless there is a portion of the original that you have not included which would change the meaning, it seems to support the possibility of a non-chronological interpretation of Genesis 1.

Certainly we must accept that there was an original pair of humans that constitute our first parents, and any interpretation of polygeny that denies this must be rejected This is quite a different issue from interpreting the six days of creation.

I also am confused since the discussion is about not polygeny but the six days of creation and in particular the issue of “death” as a result of the Fall, how one is to interpret this.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I agree

Obviously what happened, the universe that unfolded, was permitted by the will of God - although he never directly created evil or human death (and I’ll leave that undefined).

However people I believe are simply reflecting on the nature of the Fall and its resulting consequence. I do not think it is “wrong” to imagine what may have been since the Fall was still a free choice that God brought greater good out of (the incarnation, making it a “happy fall” in some respects despite its evil). Yes he foreknew this history, knew it would happen and actualized it, however he did still create us in time a certain way, which we “lost” at the Fall.

Posters in this thread are trying to ascertain what that certain way was.

I see what you mean. The question of what would have happened if a particular free choice had been made differently is impossible for us to answer because the answer would lie in the sovereign will of God, but I suppose one could speculate in a sort of biological way on what would hypothetically have happened to Adam or Eve if they had never sinned.

I’m the last person to discourage theological or philosophical speculation merely because the topic is obscure or impractical, but in this case I don’t think we have enough information to be likely to come to a correct conclusion.

 

[Della]

We know that there was natural death in the world simply because Eve would not have understood the consequences of eating of the tree of good and evil, for doing so would cause death. The serpent tempted her by saying, “Did God say so?” And Even embellished God’s command saying that to even touch the fruit would bring death, so she understood the concept, something she could not have done if she had no knowledge of it from the natural world in which she lived.

 

[edwest2]

More from Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."

Peace,
Ed

 

[Vouthon]

I see what you mean. The question of what would have happened if a particular free choice had been made differently is impossible for us to answer because the answer would lie in the sovereign will of God, but** I suppose one could speculate in a sort of biological way on what would hypothetically have happened to Adam or Eve if they had never sinned. **

I’m the last person to discourage theological or philosophical speculation merely because the topic is obscure or impractical, but in this case I don’t think we have enough information to be likely to come to a correct conclusion.

The bolded sentence is the issue under discussion raised by the initial poster.

I appreciate what you are saying, however there is a very important biological issue at play here: curent science teaches that man has never been immortal, whereas traditional Catholic theology (and Christian) teaches that human death was a consequence of the Fall. This is important so that our faith is interpreted rationally and in accord with modern science, rather than confugured by outdated concepts from millenia ago when science was less advanced.

I thus believe that there is an important debate here as to the nature of man’s original nature pre-Fall and original sin, given that Christianity presupposes that we were created different from the way we are now. This theological truth must be correlated with advances in biology and indeed our more developed understanding of divinely revealed truth in the 21st century as opposed to say the time of the Fathers.

Trying to interpret our Fall merely as “spiritual death” is very problematic theologically since man is a unity of body and soul (meaning that separation is an unnatural consequence of the Fall rather than an inherent hallmark of our nature) but this understanding is inevitable as a result of modern peoples’ inculturation with advances in human biology and modern rationalist mentalities. I don’t adhere to this belief, given my knowledge of traditional Catholic doctrinal teaching, even although I do really sympathise with it and understand the sense of it. I therefore encourage those who adhere to this perspective to give their speculations because there is an important debate to have here. We need some kind of answer, or will hopefully reach a satisfying one under the guidance of the Holy Spirit developing the seeds of truth planted in divine revelation but perhaps not yet fully grown in understanding by us. This can only occur through theological speculation/discussion.

 

[edwest2]

We know that there was natural death in the world simply because Eve would not have understood the consequences of eating of the tree of good and evil, for doing so would cause death. The serpent tempted her by saying, “Did God say so?” And Even embellished God’s command saying that to even touch the fruit would bring death, so she understood the concept, something she could not have done if she had no knowledge of it from the natural world in which she lived.

Go to the Bible:

Go to Genesis , Chapter 2, 16 and 17: “The Lord God gave man this order. ‘You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden 17 except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.’” NAB

Peace,
Ed

 

[Della]

Go to the Bible:

Go to Genesis , Chapter 2, 16 and 17: “The Lord God gave man this order. ‘You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden 17 except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.’” NAB

Peace,
Ed

Ah, okay. Isn’t that what I said?

 

[bitznbitez]

Possibly you need to open to the idea that death is not a bad thing. Death means life for all species on earth. It’s part of the natural process God Created. God didn’t just create things, He Created processes. God doesn’t paint plants green, He uses photosynthesis and as a result, leaves of plants are mostly shades of green.

Julia I’m going to pick on your response as it comes closest to the true question for me. You are saying similar things to what a lot of others are saying, but the way I see your thinking going is precisely what causes my pondering.

I understand intellectually the logic behind the idea that physical death has always been the gateway to eternal communion, the seed. But death is not intellectual.

I have watched it in my dog, as grim creeper snuck up on him slowly. I volunteer in hospice and what I witness is not good.

Your life depends on death is exactly my point. The very existence of life here is tied up in death. For life to exist without death it would have to be very different. I envision a mystical change in the whole order of creation.

It really does come down to not being able to see death as part of “good”, “very good”, or “perfect”.

That figurative language applies to “death” also. Before the Fall, Adam lived in a place God had Created for him a state that was not in Time/Space, where earth is. Adam was in the Presence of God every day when God came to him there. But now, for people, for descendants of Adam who now must be born into this state of being, to be with God as Adam once was, we must experience death.

Now this I could follow a lot easier and its in one sense what I’m thinking but as soon as I start down this road the creation of man has already happened in the other state and so the whole “evolution of life into man” bit becomes entirely moot if we didn’t come from here to start with.

Animals and plants change form. That is, the matter of the animal changes into something plants can use to grow, insects and other things can feed on that animals can eat. It’s a huge connected cycle of change that, in fact, stays pretty much the same even if the look of the animals and plants changes.

Human beings, the union of a spiritual soul with a form of matter, are here for one purpose: to show forth the face of God and be transformed into the image of Christ. Thus we die to self and pass on to the Presence of God.

I can cannot grasp that an animal doesn’t have some sort of a soul, not a human one, not one destined for union with God. The suffering of the animals as they die, I cannot view as good, and our current world / life depends on death for its existence. This is what evolution depends on. Its not good, not very good, not perfect.

I find it easier to decide that a large quantity of PhD’s are wrong somehow, even if I can’t explain it either, rather than to decide physical death preexisted sin in the world. Because the majority of these guys also tell me I don’t have an eternal soul, christ didn’t rise, there are no miracles or angels or demons or saints etc.

But I will ponder this more.

 

[Blacksword]

The bolded sentence is the issue under discussion raised by the initial poster.

I appreciate what you are saying, however there is a very important biological issue at play here: curent science teaches that man has never been immortal, whereas traditional Catholic theology (and Christian) teaches that human death was a consequence of the Fall. This is important so that our faith is interpreted rationally and in accord with modern science, rather than confugured by outdated concepts from millenia ago when science was less advanced.

I thus believe that there is an important debate here as to the nature of man’s original nature pre-Fall and original sin, given that Christianity presupposes that we were created different from the way we are now. This theological truth must be correlated with advances in biology and indeed our more developed understanding of divinely revealed truth in the 21st century as opposed to say the time of the Fathers.

Trying to interpret our Fall merely as “spiritual death” is very problematic theologically since man is a unity of body and soul (meaning that separation is an unnatural consequence of the Fall rather than an inherent hallmark of our nature) but this understanding is inevitable as a result of modern peoples’ inculturation with advances in human biology and modern rationalist mentalities. I don’t adhere to this belief, given my knowledge of traditional Catholic doctrinal teaching, even although I do really sympathise with it and understand the sense of it. I therefore encourage those who adhere to this perspective to give their speculations because there is an important debate to have here. We need some kind of answer, or will hopefully reach a satisfying one under the guidance of the Holy Spirit developing the seeds of truth planted in divine revelation but perhaps not yet fully grown in understanding by us. This can only occur through theological speculation/discussion.

I’m not seeing the conflict. First, as a matter of curiosity, has the theological concept that separation of the unity of body and soul is inherently against the natural law and therefore an evil been dogmatically declared? Is it de fide? I’m well aware St. Aquinas held this, I’ve read his abridged Shorter Summa in total, but that doesn’t make it infallibly declared. Secondly though, even it so defined, this has a conflict with Tolkien’s first view, the one I’m familiar with, only if we’re ascribing time concepts to eternity, which is absurd. “Death” can be defined as a separation of body and soul, but if in eternity we are “simultaneously” (if anything can have such time notions ascribed to it beyond time itself) we are assumed, that is glorified and embodied into our perfected bodies, is it sensible to even talk of a separation occuring? That is: to us here it seems a separation occurs, but in eternity none has. Thus Tolkien’s “two views” are really one and the same. He could be said to be dealing with the mode and appearances of physical death as we know it. Take the Numenoreans for indtance, who did not become feeble old and decrepit, but simply consigned themselves at the proper time to surrender this life, remaining vibrant, strong and of prime of life throughout their lives. This, I think, was his vision of physical death before the Fall.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m not seeing the conflict. First, as a matter of curiosity, has the theological concept that separation of the unity of body and soul is inherently against the natural law and therefore an evil been dogmatically declared? Is it de fide? I’m well aware St. Aquinas held this, I’ve read his abridged Shorter Summa in total, but that doesn’t make it infallibly declared. Secondly though, even it so defined, this has a conflict with Tolkien’s first view, the one I’m familiar with, only if we’re ascribing time concepts to eternity, which is absurd. “Death” can be defined as a separation of body and soul, but if in eternity we are “simultaneously” (if anything can have such time notions ascribed to it beyond time itself) we are assumed, that is glorified and embodied into our perfected bodies, is it sensible to even talk of a separation occuring? That is: to us here it seems a separation occurs, but in eternity none has. Thus Tolkien’s “two views” are really one and the same. He could be said to be dealing with the mode and appearances of physical death as we know it. Take the Numenoreans for indtance, who did not become feeble old and decrepit, but simply consigned themselves at the proper time to surrender this life, remaining vibrant, strong and of prime of life throughout their lives. This, I think, was his vision of physical death before the Fall.

An excellent and well-written (as well as thought out) post brother/sister Blacksword

I will reflect on this and get back to you. I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread. BTW I like your profile pic/avatar (ie Túrin Turambar from Children of Hurin)

 

[Blacksword]

An excellent and well-written (as well as thought out) post brother/sister Blacksword

I will reflect on this and get back to you. I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread. BTW I like your profile pic/avatar (ie Túrin Turambar from Children of Hurin)

Thanks on all counts! And yes, I’m a dude of course, NO female would ever be as full of Tolkien lore (i.e. fantasy geekiness!) as to give herself a username and profile so crafted to Turin Turambar, someone you’d have to have read the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin to know about really!

But I have in all seriousness thought a lot about this very issue: in many ways I think a cogent answer to this philosophical and theological question of human and natural physical death is the key to reconciling Christian faith with science…settling the question on this point really makes all else in the issue of evolution, cosmology, and theology within the Biblical record mere details. This seems so as it strikes at the heart of what exactly we are to understand the Fall to be, of what we are to take away from the Biblical account as the actual consequences of it, and how it fits into a scientifically informed knowledge of our human origins. Indeed scarcely anyone had a problem with Darwin until it was considered that humans came about the same way as the animals!

I came from a Baptist background and basically fundamentalist at that. At one time my coming to grips with scientific reality nearly cost me my faith…by God’s grace instead what started as a spiritual crisis led me to the Catholic Church!