Pope Infallibility and Genesis 3:15

[Omyo12]

So I’ve been wondering about the Doctrine that the Pope is infallible when presenting dogma ex-cathedra…

well…

Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for “Ineffable God”) is the name of a Papal bull by Pope Pius IX. It defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The decree was promulgated on December 8, 1854, the date of the annual Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

When looking at this I came across something of interest:

“I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15)- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the hand writing of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

Of course today from my understanding, we all (Protestant and Catholic alike) interpret Genesis 3:15 as the snake-head crusher being Christ (even Catholic Traditionalist Mel Gibson had Jesus symbolically crush the head of a snake in his movie “Passion of the Christ”) and the woman is Eve.

However Pope Pius IX wrote Mary is the woman and she would be one to crush the head of the snake along with Christ.

Do not today’s teachings contradict Pope Pius IX’s infallible statement?

Why does every English Catholic Bible (besides the Douay Rheims) read:

Genesis 3:15 (NAB)
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

Even the RSV-2CE footnotes say the woman is Eve, her seed are her descendants, and the “he” is Christ.
They note the “she” is some Latin manuscripts and the Vulgate was a “copyist mistake” however contained a “genuine message” so was left in…

What does this say about Pope Infallibility?

 

[scott1228]

It does not matter if the translation says “he” or “she.”

It was through the Virgin Mary that Christ came and redeemed the world. It was part of God’s plan that her will and choice had a role to play in our redemption. The Virgin Mary and Christ are the New Adam and Eve, perfectly sinless, righting the wrong of the original Adam and Eve.

Scott

 

[OchsFam]

In addition to Scott1228’s post, I would like to point out that the quote you use says “with him and through him.” The topic of the quote is Mary and thus establishes that with Christ and through Christ, she crushed the head of the serpent. It is not a decree that Christ did not crush the head, but that Mary played a vital role in it and so could be said to have also crushed the head of the serpent.

 

[Canto]

King James = it
Douay = she
Hebrew = the former (no gender stated)
NAB = they (in footnotes says this is more exact)

The Hebrew simply means: “the former” - i.e. the just referred to. Since the last reference was enmity “between your seed and her seed” - it is not clear if “the former” refers to “her” or to “her seed”.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and hers; ??? will strike at your head, while you strike at ??? heel."

‘She’ seems to be the more logical translation in context and you’ll notice the dialogue seems to be a him vs her, ENMITY between YOU and the WOMAN. And who is the prophesised victor, the serpent or the woman – the woman!

Hers (her seed) is plural, so it would seem more logical to say: “She (singular) shall crush YOUR head (singular) - and you (singular) will strike at HER (singular) heel.”

btw Saint Jerome translated the Hebrew for this verse

David Hughes and Rick Salbato noted (unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm) “The serpent is most adequately humiliated, not by a composite of sinful, yet predestinate souls, – nor he is he adequately humiliated by Christ - who was “immediately, straight away snatched up to heaven and seated at the right hand of God” before the serpent ever has a chance to even do battle with him! (Rev. 12:7) No – Satan immediately goes away to “make war on the REST of “her” children.” No where - is there any reference to Christ doing battle with Satan – there is only a reference Christ being IMMEDIATELY lifted straight up to God, and placed on his throne - and then to Satan going away enraged - to make war on the REST of her children. (Rev. 12:7) Satan is never even given so much as a MOMENT to do battle with Christ - let alone is there time for Christ to crush his head - in this final Apocalyptic conclusion of the enmity first referenced in Genesis. There is NO battle staged - or fought - between Christ and Satan. Rather, the battle is immediately rendered with: “the rest of her children.” So - who is the one who crushes Satan’s head? - the woman - or the rest of her children??”

To put it in a way one apologist did…

I will put enmity
between you (1) and the woman (2)
between your (1) seed (1a) and her (2) seed (2b)
she (2) will strike at your (1) head
and you (1) will strike at her (2) heel.

 

[WesleyF]

“For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Romans 16:19-20)

When we are guileless as to what is evil, God will crush Satan under our feet!

Mary was guileless from the beginning! And she was obedient to God. So Satan was crushed under her feet too!

 

[PeterK]

Omyo12,
Interesting question. Let me see if I understand it.

So is your problem that they both cannot be the head-crushers?

Is your line of reasoning that it must be Christ or Mary but not both or else Papal Infallibility is fallible?

Can the proto-evangelium be read to mean a ‘triumph’ over satan and not total extermination?

Yes, it can.

Certainly, satan is not exterminated as sin still thrives, at least this was the case when the encyclical was published. So while G3.15 may point to some future event were satan is eventually exterminated forever - this event has not yet occurred. This being the case we can only be dealing with ‘triumphs’ or ‘victories’ at this point. If so, Mary certainly triumphed over satan - more so than any other person outside of her son - by completely trusting God’s will for her, and Jesus certainly triumphed over satan with his passion and resurrection. So the two greatest victories so for are those of Mary and Jesus - nothing else comes close.

More over, that G3.15 says there is going to be and remain enmity between the opposing parties suggests an ongoing struggle more than it does a final defeat. The nature of this ongoing struggle contains ‘heel-biting’ and ‘head-crushing’.

In the Hebrew text, the same word is used for ‘biting’ and ‘crushing’. ‘Crush’ - being a stronger verb than ‘bite’ - gives the unintended impression of a final fatal action as opposed to the non-fatal ‘bite’ action. The receiving location of the action is different, heel and head, but the action is the same word in the Hebrew. The verse could be translated more literally as ‘*strike *your heel…*strike *his head.’

So, IMHO, the inference of a ‘final crushing end-it-all blow to the head’ is not indicated in the hebrew text. Seeing G3.15 as indicating an ongoing struggle and not a ‘crushing’ defeat allows for multiple ‘triumphs’ over satan and removes the contradiction.

Hope that helped.
Peter

 

[PJM]

So I’ve been wondering about the Doctrine that the Pope is infallible when presenting dogma ex-cathedra…

well…

When looking at this I came across something of interest:

Of course today from my understanding, we all (Protestant and Catholic alike) interpret Genesis 3:15 as the snake-head crusher being Christ (even Catholic Traditionalist Mel Gibson had Jesus symbolically crush the head of a snake in his movie “Passion of the Christ”) and the woman is Eve.

This is not any Catholic doctrine I ever heard of. The verse refers to Mary, Mother of Jesus!

Gen. 3;:5 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; **he **shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise **his **heel."

The women in question is of course Mary, the Mother of Jesus, it might also include “Moter-Cjurch.”

However Pope Pius IX wrote Mary is the woman and she would be one to crush the head of the snake along with Christ.YES but and with and through the merits of Her Son Jesus]

Do not today’s teachings contradict Pope Pius IX’s infallible statement?

What in the heck are you talking about?

Why does every English Catholic Bible (besides the Douay Rheims) read:

Even the RSV-2CE footnotes say the woman is Eve, her seed are her descendants, and the “he” is Christ.
They note the “she” is some Latin manuscripts and the Vulgate was a “copyist mistake” however contained a “genuine message” so was left in…

What does this say about Pope Infallibility?

Friend I understand the point you’re trying to make [Perniciously, I think?] but i see no evidence to support you’re claim.

Haydock’s Cathholic Comentay

Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Omyo12]

I would like to thank you all for your very helpful responses

I’ve referred to my trusted Catechism of the Catholic Church (something I should’ve done first… haha) to read the official Church teaching on it and my question is completely answered

The women in question is of course Mary, the Mother of Jesus, it might also include “Moter-Cjurch.”

However the RSV-2CE and NAB editors would disagree.
(I read catechisms 410 and 411 on this and know the footnote is not what the Church teaches )

What in the heck are you talking about?

Friend I understand the point you’re trying to make [Perniciously, I think?] but i see no evidence to support you’re claim.

No need to get angry. I mean not to be pernicious. However what I was saying is that modern English Catholic Bibles claim the woman was Eve. This is contradictory to what Pope Pius IX said about the woman being Mary.

I was concerned since the RSV-2CE footnotes (and also the NAB’s though I am aware of its heresies) claim the woman is Eve. I was wondering if this is what the Church is currently teaching. If it was, I ask what this says about Pope Infallibility.

This is what the RSV-2CE says the about Genesis 3:15:

• 3:15, he shall bruise your head: i.e. the seed of the woman, that is, mankind descended from Eve, will eventually gain victory over the powers of evil. This victory will, of course, be gained through the work of the Messiah who is par excellence the seed of the woman. The Latin Vulgate has the reading ipsa conteret, “she shall bruise.” Some Old Latin manuscripts have this reading, and it occurs also in St. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II, which is earlier than St. Jerome’s translation. It could be due originally to a copyist’s mistake, which was then seen to contain a genuine meaning-- namely, that Mary, too, would have her share in the victory, inasmuch as she was the mother of the Savior.

After reading catechisms 410 and 411, the answer is pretty much: no, this is not what the Church teaches…

 

[LiamUK]

It does not matter if the translation says “he” or “she.”

It was through the Virgin Mary that Christ came and redeemed the world. It was part of God’s plan that her will and choice had a role to play in our redemption. The Virgin Mary and Christ are the New Adam and Eve, perfectly sinless, righting the wrong of the original Adam and Eve.

Scott

yes the Virgin Mary is referred to as the new Eve but Jesus (from my knowlege) is not reffered to as the new Adam. He is the Son of God.

 

[davidv]

yes the Virgin Mary is referred to as the new Eve but Jesus (from my knowlege) is not reffered to as the new Adam. He is the Son of God.

Why must He be one or the other and not both?

 

[PJM]

=Omyo12;5277742]I would like to thank you all for your very helpful responses

I’ve referred to my trusted Catechism of the Catholic Church (something I should’ve done first… haha) to read the official Church teaching on it and my question is completely answered

However the RSV-2CE and NAB editors would disagree.
(I read catechisms 410 and 411 on this and know the footnote is not what the Church teaches )

No need to get angry. I mean not to be pernicious. However what I was saying is that modern English Catholic Bibles claim the woman was Eve. This is contradictory to what Pope Pius IX said about the woman being Mary.

I was concerned since the RSV-2CE footnotes (and also the NAB’s though I am aware of its heresies) claim the woman is Eve. I was wondering if this is what the Church is currently teaching. If it was, I ask what this says about Pope Infallibility.

This is what the RSV-2CE says the about Genesis 3:15:

After reading catechisms 410 and 411, the answer is pretty much: no, this is not what the Church teaches…

Dear friend,

I owe you an apology. You taught me to be less judgemental!

I “assumed” this was just another attempt at “Catholic bashing.”

As an FYI, the footnoted in the New American which I use ONLY because its the bible used at Mass, explains that the words really describe “them” meaning Jesus and Mary.

Please forgive me

Love and prayers
Pat

 

[Omyo12]

Please forgive me

It’s all good

I tend to ask hard questions because non-Catholics ask me hard questions and I want to be as well prepared as possible!