Problems with "no death before the Fall"

[Trevor_Stamm]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Absolute Primacy of Christ means, among many things, that only someone who is both True God and True Man, could atone (expiation) for Original Sin committed by a human against God. The Absolute Primacy of Christ is because Jesus is both True Man (and thus can reconcile humanity) and True God (with Divinity).

Catholic doctrines do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. While Divine Revelation is complete in Jesus Christ, it is not completely explicit. It remains for the Catholic Church, with the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14) to gradually grasp Divine Revelation’s full significance over the centuries via the major Ecumenical Councils. (Please refer to CCC 65 - 66) This was done as individual speculations or philosophies arose concerning various truths of Catholicism.

A very brief check of John Duns Scotus (c1265-1308) puts him in an amazing period of philosophical developments. What is essential to remember is that not every word of every philosopher has been automatically transformed into Catholic doctrine.

From my brief checking of the provided link, Scotus was a major contributor to philosophical thought and “Scotism” is alive and well according to Danny Garland Jr. who is responsible for the link. Following Garland’s link to “Disputations”, I noticed a change in vocabulary about sin. The words actual sin seemed to be substituted for personal sin. This is not a big deal since both sites are independent personal discussions about issues. Vocabulary becomes a big deal when the Catholic Church has to describe both Original Sin and personal sins when both are actually committed by actual people (CCC 396 - 406)

Catholics need to understand the difference between what Adam did and what we do. Yes, I realize that part of today’s problems regarding original sin is due to the teachings of theologians like Matthew Fox (former Catholic priest) who sought to obliterate the disaster of Adam’s choice to scorn his Creator. Another problem is that Catholics do not take the time to study human origin and original sin beyond what is presented in the cutesy children’s books where Adam and Eve are wearing leaves.

Getting back to the link. This is a totally out-of-context quote and it needs to be read as such. [3b] “You don’t predestine the height of created glory based on the fall of an inferior creature.” This makes me wonder how current Scotists describe Original Sin considering the current influence of writers who wish to downgrade basic Catholic doctrines about human origin to fit with their personal “modern” propositions.

Obviously, there is more to Original Sin than a “fall of an inferior creature.” as commented in the link. This is why it is important for Catholics to study human nature, original sin, and the Salvific mission of the Incarnation. God is always the Trinity. God exists as the Trinity, a Pure Spirit not subject to created time. Yet, God Himself entered the human time frame as expiation for Original Sin. One needs to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, in order to understand the how and why an “inferior creature” needed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

One can enter the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition at this link. Continue reading.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

It is important to remember that philosophers in all ages have contributed to the understanding of various points of Faith. The Catholic Church is the arbitrator which determines which philosophical concepts reflect Divine Revelation and which concepts do not via the protocol of Ecumenical Councils and an universal Catechism.

Because the doctrines of Original Sin were formulated over the centuries, it is essential to use the current Catechism and its citations, including modern ones such as Humani Generis, in order to understand the complete picture regarding Jesus Christ as Redeemer.

Scotus never denied, nor should anyone, that Christ is our Redeemer and we completely need Him to save us from sin. That said, however our personal relationship with God should not be motivated by fear of sinning or sin itself, it should always be primarily motivated by love and desire to do His will. We do not got confession mainly to rid ourselves of sin but to prepare us for a more holy act, Communion.

Aquinas believed no fall, no incarnation but before explaining his position, he gave the opposing opinion, which was held by his teachers, great respect and likely possibility. The theory has been around for awhile, just never put into a thesis like what Scotus did. There is a video series on YouTube, 24 parts each ten minutes, by Franciscans of the Immaculate that gives great detail of the thesis, highly recommended. when I get home, I’ll post the first video.

 

[levinas12]

The first pivot is – what is the inner life of the Trinity?
One of the first citations regarding God which comes to mind is the Nicene Creed. .

The next pivot is – what is human nature?
One can look in the mirror for the best citation.

An interesting citation is St. Catherine of Siena, *Dialogue *4, 13 “On Divine Providence”: LH, Sunday, week 19, OR. This is where St. Catherine addresses
“dignity” itself, i.e., dignity of the human person. One of the citations for “dignity” is the Genesis 1:27 reference to the Image of God.

The inner life of the Trinity refers to the relationships of the Three Persons to one another, apart from Creation, Father to Son, Father and Son to the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit to Father and Son. Father begets the Son (the relation of “begottenness”). Father and Son “spirate” the Holy Spirit (the relation of “spiration” or procession). These relations constitute the immanent Trinity.

Thee dynamic relations of the immanent Trinity are called “circumincession” (the divine “enfolding”) in the West and “periochoresis” (the divine “dance”) in the East.

The immanent Trinity is to be distinguished from the economic Trinity (Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier) which sums up God’s relations towards creation.

The Nicene Creed contains propositions about both the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity.

And the way the Creed blends these propositions together shows a connection between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. The immanent Trinity overflows (freely and lovingly) into the economic Trinity.

Because the Trinity is a communion of Persons, human nature primordially is oriented towards communion. That’s why the narcissism of the mirror (or self-reflection) may not be the best way to discover who we are.

One could say that we (not me, not you, understood separately) are the image of God.

 

[levinas12]

One could say that we (not me, not you, understood separately) are the image of God.

As God is a communion of persons, we are a communion of persons.

The isolated Cartesian ego is not a communion.

So it is more correct to say that “we” are the image (not the isolated me or the isolated you).

This does not detract from the dignity of the individual person. Rather, it enhances it. Because to be a person is to be capable of “communion” with other persons (or better, to be always and already in “communion” with other persons).

 

[levinas12]

“periochoresis”

“perichoresis”

 

[levinas12]

The dynamic relations of the immanent Trinity are called “circumincession” (the divine “enfolding”) in the West and “periochoresis” (the divine “dance”) in the East.

"perichoresis"

 

[grannymh]

The inner life of the Trinity refers to the relationships of the Three Persons to one another, apart from Creation, Father to Son, Father and Son to the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit to Father and Son. Father begets the Son (the relation of “begottenness”). Father and Son “spirate” the Holy Spirit (the relation of “spiration” or procession). These relations constitute the immanent Trinity.

Thee dynamic relations of the immanent Trinity are called “circumincession” (the divine “enfolding”) in the West and “periochoresis” (the divine “dance”) in the East.

The immanent Trinity is to be distinguished from the economic Trinity (Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier) which sums up God’s relations towards creation.

The Nicene Creed contains propositions about both the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity.

And the way the Creed blends these propositions together shows a connection between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. The immanent Trinity overflows (freely and lovingly) into the economic Trinity.

Because the Trinity is a communion of Persons, human nature primordially is oriented towards communion. That’s why the narcissism of the mirror (or self-reflection) may not be the best way to discover who we are.

One could say that we (not me, not you, understood separately) are the image of God.

If I am understanding the above theories correctly, they present this or that relationship between The Persons as a human effort to explain the mystery of God’s Oneness meaning Three Persons, One Nature (substance). God is Trinity.

Human nature is different from the Trinity because each person is a single nature. Each of us is an individual. We are not a communion or community sharing our very nature with other persons. It is because God directly and immediately creates each spiritual soul that God calls each person to share by knowledge and love in His own life. Please note that I said “our very nature” so that readers are aware that humans do form communities and in a human sense are in communion with each other. The Catholic Church is a communion of individual believers.

Self-reflection is a good description of a mirror. Self-reflection is also an intellective tool of the spiritual soul which helps us understand who we are. When I read various versions of Original Sin, I wonder if people really understand what it is about human nature that permits us to say that each of us, starting with Adam, is made in the Image of God. This is way different than humans (created creatures) being in communion with other human created creatures. We need to remind ourselves that God is the Creator and we are the creature. God is not made in our image or in the image of our relationships with other people. God is a transcendent Pure Spirit without material/physical limitations.

Personally, I do not like to think of a human being as “an inferior creature”. The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Personally, I do not like to think of a human being as “an inferior creature”. The human person is worthy of profound respect.

From who?

 

[levinas12]

As God is a communion of persons, we are a communion of persons.

The isolated Cartesian ego is not a communion.

So it is more correct to say that “we” are the image (not the isolated me or the isolated you).

This does not detract from the dignity of the individual person. Rather, it enhances it. Because to be a person is to be capable of “communion” with other persons (or better, to be always and already in “communion” with other persons).

A further thought. This is the basis for JP II’s argument in the Theology of the Body that the communion of persons in marriage is “iconic”.

In other words, it is Adam and Eve together that constitutes the image of the Trinitarian God.

All of this stems theologically from the fact that it is Love which binds the immanent Trinity together, and Love cannot exist unless there is a plurality of Persons who are also One, i.e., a Communion of Persons.

 

[levinas12]

… each person is a single nature.

Actually, the nature is the same for all human beings. It is the persons who are different. And persons are not natures. A nature can be defined by a genus and specific difference. But a person cannot be so defined. True, Bob and Sally are members of the class of rational animals. But the person of Bob or the person of Sally goes beyond simply “rational animal”. Persons are really singularities. Bob is not a member of a class of Bobs; Sally is not a member of a class of Sallys. There is no concept of Bob per se or Sally per se. That is why we say that “Bob” andr “Sally” are not sortal nouns like “animal” or “plant”.

But I think I know what you mean by “single nature”. Bob or Sally are, in the common parlance, “sui generis” although there is really no genus at work here.

 

[levinas12]

Each of us is an individual. We are not a communion or community sharing our very nature with other persons.

An icon is a finite window into the infinite depth of God.

I agree the communion of human persons falls short of the Communion of Divine Persons. But that does not destroy its iconic value. The finite can still image the infinite.

The question is what “finite” reality is iconic.

Because God is a communion of Persons united by Love, wouldn’t it seem reasonable that a community of human persons united by love (like a family) is iconic?

I think that persons can give themselves to each other in a way that is iconic of the “self-donation” that goes on inside the Trinity (the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father).

With grace, there can be sharing of “our very nature with other persons”.

 

[grannymh]

A further thought. This is the basis for JP II’s argument in the Theology of the Body that the communion of persons in marriage is “iconic”.

In other words, it is Adam and Eve together that constitutes the image of the Trinitarian God.

All of this stems theologically from the fact that it is Love which binds the immanent Trinity together, and Love cannot exist unless there is a plurality of Persons who are also One, i.e., a Communion of Persons.

Pope John Paul is suggesting an image. He does not flat out say that there is no individual person. Three Persons of a Divine Nature is not the same as two human persons.

 

[grannymh]

With grace, there can be sharing of “our very nature with other persons”.

Very poetic. Nice.

Figurative language is often used to explain concepts. Plus, as explained above, the word nature has many different meanings. So you may continue to use any meaning of nature that you wish.

However, when one is exploring the reality of the first human being known biblically as Adam, one is also dealing with the real blood and guts of the human species.

 

[grannymh]

I am going to kindly request any participants in this thread to refrain from any non-Catholic/Christian responses, in keeping with forum rules. This is an area of faith that has been causing me a great deal of frustration. Any insight to these questions would be enormously appreciated.

1.) How are we to understand physical immortality before the Fall in light of the destructability of the body? For instance, suppose Adam, in his immortal state, were beheaded or crushed by a boulder?

2.) God commands Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the Earth before the Fall. This being the case, had they followed his command without sinning, would the Earth not become overpopulated?

3.) How are to reconcile man’s original physical immortality with the finite nature of the universe; that is, the fact that the universe itself will one day die?

The best answer is Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[grannymh]

Pope John Paul is suggesting an image. He does not flat out say that there is no individual person. Three Persons of a Divine Nature is not the same as two human persons.

To correct any possible confusion, please note that “no individual person” above refers to the human species.

For the original reference, please refer back to post 77 which says:
“So it is more correct to say that “we” are the image (not the isolated me or the isolated you).”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9093573&postcount=77

The difficulty is the use of the word “we” as in “we” are the image…

 

[grannymh]

I am going to kindly request any participants in this thread to refrain from any non-Catholic/Christian responses, in keeping with forum rules. This is an area of faith that has been causing me a great deal of frustration. Any insight to these questions would be enormously appreciated.

Because we humans are curious about who we are and where we came from, the possibility for frustrations is huge. This is especially true in the 21st century because science from anthropology to zoology has given us intense information about our own material/physical world. We have this natural expectation that we should know likewise about the spiritual world. Thus, we tend to sidestep the realization that the spiritual world is not at all like the material/physical world. What is difficult is that the scholastic philosophers and modern ones often used material or cultural/social phenomena as analogies for the spiritual world.

What I admire about the Catholic Church is its ability to sort out the essential information from *both *the scientific realm and the spiritual realm. It takes seriously its responsibility to pass on to each generation the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Thus, it chooses which information is essential for humans to reach the eternal goal of direct experience of the Beatific Vision.

The Catholic protocol for defining Catholic doctrines is to study Scripture, Tradition, and the writings of the Church fathers, philosophers, theologians, popes, saints, and ordinary folk. Church Councils, including local ones, are studied in depth including the preparation for these meetings and the subsequent encyclicals. After all that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14) the Catholic Church defines, that is, it makes explicit, specific areas of Divine Revelation. This process began at Pentecost when the Apostles preached with the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit.

In my humble opinion, it is natural to look at the vast knowledge of the material world, including human anatomy, and wonder why God has not been more specific about human nature details before the Fall. We find it hard to trust that God has given us the essential information. An interesting sentence from CCC 396 is: “The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.” We are not on the same level of our Creator; therefore it is reasonable that we would be limited when it comes to understanding all the nitty-gritty of creation as He does. Our curiosity is not always the best judge of what is essential in the area of Faith

What is essential to understand is that in the Garden, before the Fall, the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1.) Refer to CCC 404. In the Garden, after the Fall, all of humanity experiences the effects of Original Sin. (CCC 404 & 405)

The CCC 396 beginning sentences are: “God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.” Here “man” not only refers to the first human, Adam, but also to all his descendents, including you and me. CCC 397 begins: “Man [the actual Adam], tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.”

The frustration from not knowing A - Z about the pre-fall era can gradually erode trust that God has already given us the essential information. Maybe the devil finds the temptation of frustration more useful than a tasty organic apple.

This is not meant to imply that frustration is always bad. On the contrary, frustration can lead to a deeper study of CCC paragraphs 355 - 421 including the cross references in the margins. (A hard copy of the Catechism is a must. It is unproductive to highlight interesting points on the computer screen.) Frustration can cause us to pause when a particular paragraph tantalizes us. Maybe, we start to rationalize, maybe it is here where frustration can be overcome.

We need to remember that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit is not restricted. A quick prayer or a wink will invite the Holy Spirit’s presence as we struggle to enjoy the insights of the Catechism.

 

[jdfeeley]

In my opinion Scott Hahn’s book “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” provides the best solution to this conundrum.

Adam was only immortal as much as he continued to eat from the “tree of life” otherwise he was a mortal being.

Death did exist before the fall. The death of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in a spiritual death and adam and eve being kicked out of the garden so they couldn’t eat from the tree of life that would give them immortality…

thus the conundrum is solved. Yes before the fall death had not entered humanity because they tree of life was provided by God to sustain it. After the fall death entered humanity because man couldn’t eat from that tree of life anymore.

 

[grannymh]

In my opinion Scott Hahn’s book “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” provides the best solution to this conundrum.

Adam was only immortal as much as he continued to eat from the “tree of life” otherwise he was a mortal being.

Death did exist before the fall. The death of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in a spiritual death and adam and eve being kicked out of the garden so they couldn’t eat from the tree of life that would give them immortality…

thus the conundrum is solved. Yes before the fall death had not entered humanity because they tree of life was provided by God to sustain it. After the fall death entered humanity because man couldn’t eat from that tree of life anymore.

Catholic teaching considers that immortality is related to Adam’s human nature and not a result of his diet. Obviously, he did eat due to his human nature. Neither are the Catholic doctrines on Original Sin based on Adam’s eating habits. They are based on an actual sin committed by the first human being.

To understand Adam’s real human nature and the real event of Original Sin, please read paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

One can enter the Catechism at this link. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
Warning: This is not a page-turner.