Orignal Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter JTBT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I missed the post reference. It was in relation to 373. In the first two explanations A&E are used as metaphors. In the third i.e. “they couldn’t have kids because they didn’t know they were naked” it takes the story as a more literal event. Which I don’t think is the case. A&E are allegorical.
 
jonfawkes said:
Sorry, I missed the post reference. It was in relation to 373. In the first two explanations A&E are used as metaphors. In the third i.e. “they couldn’t have kids because they didn’t know they were naked” it takes the story as a more literal event. Which I don’t think is the case. A&E are allegorical.
Click to expand...
In addition, the Church also teaches that they are real persons who sinned and brought disorder into human nature.

CCC said:
**417 **Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
Click to expand...
 
jonfawkes said:
No, the Church teaches it is how we know the nature of man, not an actual biological event.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

So an allegorical story. A tale through witch we learn a truth. A parable. (like Jesus taught)
Click to expand...
I agree that story has alegorical content. However it is not fiction. I don’t think you understand Church teaching.
The article you quote is not Church authorized teaching.

From an article on CA website
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).
Click to expand...
So your claim that Adam and Eve were not two individual human persons is contrary to Church teaching.
 
davidv said:
I agree that story has alegorical content. However it is not fiction. I don’t think you understand Church teaching.
The article you quote is not Church authorized teaching.

From an article on CA website
So your claim that Adam and Eve were not two individual human persons is contrary to Church teaching.
Click to expand...
In this regard I consider the RCC in error. It is one of the major reasons that I, even when a believer, could never have seen myself as a Catholic (other reasons, too). Trying to make Adam and Eve two literal persons with our modern understanding of the history of the planet is, IMO, anti-intellectual. I know several Catholics that dismiss this teaching because of its intellectual crudity. It takes a mighty act of faith to dismiss all the vectors of science pointing toward common ancestry and evolution of mortal hominids and no creation act from nothing.
 
larkin31 said:
In this regard I consider the RCC in error. It is one of the major reasons that I, even when a believer, could never have seen myself as a Catholic (other reasons, too). Trying to make Adam and Eve two literal persons with our modern understanding of the history of the planet is, IMO, anti-intellectual. I know several Catholics that dismiss this teaching because of its intellectual crudity. It takes a mighty act of faith to dismiss all the vectors of science pointing toward common ancestry and evolution of mortal hominids and no creation act from nothing.
Click to expand...
In this regard the Church teaches only against polygensim-the idea that human life does* not *come from common ancestry.
 
davidv said:
I agree that story has alegorical content. However it is not fiction. I don’t think you understand Church teaching.
The article you quote is not Church authorized teaching.

From an article on CA website
So your claim that Adam and Eve were not two individual human persons is contrary to Church teaching.
Click to expand...
The article quotes various Popes and catholic teaching. I don’t think you understand allegory - it can be a story but still convey truth.

This is what the CCC that you posted states
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).
Click to expand...
“Figurative language” means this isn’t to be taken literally.
 
jonfawkes said:
The article quotes various Popes and catholic teaching. I don’t think you understand allegory - it can be a story but still convey truth.

This is what the CCC that you posted states
“Figurative language” means this isn’t to be taken literally.
Click to expand...
But “affirms a primeval event” does mean the commission of the act is to be taken literally. This is basic Catholic theology-that Adam & Eve- first parents to all living humans by whatever names-actually existed and committed the first act of disobedience against God.
 
fhansen said:
But “affirms a primeval event” does mean the commission of the act is to be taken literally. This is basic Catholic theology-that Adam & Eve- first parents to all living humans by whatever names-actually existed and committed the first act of disobedience against God.
Click to expand...
Of course there were “the first humans”. We are here aren’t we? 😃 A&E is a allegorical story of a obvious fact that we must have started somewhere. The Catholic Church is not an evolution denier.
 
wjp984 said:
I think the Holy Spirit can not dwell within us until Baptism according to Eastern Theology. So essentially, the same thing is believed but in a different way. The reason I like the Eastern Concept better is it enables more of a possibility that the unborn and unbaptized babies can go to Heaven.
Click to expand...
As a protestant, we are taught that your relationship with Jesus is between you and Jesus. The way you go to heaven is to accept him as your Lord and Savior. Baptism is not necessary to go to heaven. Neither is going to church.

Now I have been baptized and I use to go to church but the only thing that really matters is your PERSONAL relationship with Jesus Christ.
 
HereNow said:
As a protestant, we are taught that your relationship with Jesus is between you and Jesus. The way you go to heaven is to accept him as your Lord and Savior. Baptism is not necessary to go to heaven. Neither is going to church.
Click to expand...
This is contrary to Scripture, HereandNow.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

Baptism, specifically, saves you!

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

Why would Jesus talk about building a church if a church is irrelevant?
Now I have been baptized and I use to go to church but the only thing that really matters is your PERSONAL relationship with Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But you can’t have a PERSONAL relationship with Jesus without the Scriptures, and it was the Church which gave you the Scriptures. The Catholic Church to be precise.

And, there is no more PERSONAL and INTIMATE relationship with Christ than through the Eucharist, where we become ONE FLESH with Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top