Problems with "no death before the Fall"

[Trevor_Stamm]

Well, I know for fact that both Augustine and Aquinas taught that man’s pre-Fall nature included physical immortality, and neither of them have been condemned as heretics.

Have sources for that because Aquinas wrote different in the Summa.

 

[pnewton]

My opinion (hopefully not a heretical opinion) is that the Garden of Eden is in a completely different world (e.g. heaven, or a parallel universe) that doesn’t have all the biological problems we have here. Adam and Eve were expelled from that perfect world and sent to live in this universe with its death and disease and other problems.

I have to admit that I find this explaination strange and unique in a sci-fi kind of way, but also strange and compelling. I don’t see anything on first glance that would deny doctrine, so it is an interesting conjecture.

 

[grannymh]

Aren’t there created things in heaven? Isn’t heaven a lot like a perfected earth, with perfected glorified bodies and cities “heavenly Jerusalem” etc., and lions who don’t eat the lambs, etc.

Have you ever heard the description of heaven as the “Beatific Vision”?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Have you ever heard the description of heaven as the “Beatific Vision”?

Yes! And Adam and Eve were able to walk and talk with God in the garden. That sounds like the beatific vision to me, since they were in God’s immediate presence. What do you think?

 

[levinas12]

Have sources for that because Aquinas wrote different in the Summa.

Can you give me a specific cite from Aquinas?

 

[LovePatience]

I actually share this intuition with you, but I also share your uncertainty as to the orthodoxy of that view. I know there’s a long standing tradition that holds Eden to have been located in Iraq. The other-dimensional/parallel universe theory seems to make more sense though. There’s also the notion that the very nature and history of the universe were altered, past, present and future, upon man’s fall, much as Christ’s sacrifice extended back in time as well as forward. It’s quite a theological brambles, however you choose to approach it.

It seems that Eden was not on Earth. Council of Trent:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

Paradise and Earth are not equivalent.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Have sources for that because Aquinas wrote different in the Summa.

Did he now?

Whether in the state of innocence man would have been immortal?

Objection 1: It would seem that in the state of innocence man was not immortal. For the term “mortal” belongs to the definition of man. But if you take away the definition, you take away the thing defined. Therefore as long as man was man he could not be immortal.

Objection 2: Further, corruptible and incorruptible are generically distinct, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, Did. ix, 10). But there can be no passing from one genus to another. Therefore if the first man was incorruptible, man could not be corruptible in the present state.

Objection 3: Further, if man were immortal in the state of innocence, this would have been due either to nature or to grace. Not to nature, for since nature does not change within the same species, he would also have been immortal now. Likewise neither would this be owing to grace; for the first man recovered grace by repentance, according to Wis. 10:2: “He brought him out of his sins.” Hence he would have regained his immortality; which is clearly not the case. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.

Objection 4: Further, immortality is promised to man as a reward, according to Apoc. 21:4: “Death shall be no more.” But man was not created in the state of reward, but that he might deserve the reward. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.

On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 5:12): “By sin death came into the world.” Therefore man was immortal before sin.

I answer that, A thing may be incorruptible in three ways. First, on the part of matter—that is to say, either because it possesses no matter, like an angel; or because it possesses matter that is in potentiality to one form only, like the heavenly bodies. Such things as these are incorruptible by their very nature. Secondly, a thing is incorruptible in its form, inasmuch as being by nature corruptible, yet it has an inherent disposition which preserves it wholly from corruption; and this is called incorruptibility of glory; because as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.): “God made man’s soul of such a powerful nature, that from its fulness of beatitude, there redounds to the body a fulness of health, with the vigor of incorruption.” Thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal in the state of innocence. For, as Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19 *Work of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]): “God made man immortal as long as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or death.” For man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained (Q[76], A[1]), it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter.

Reply OBJ 1 and 2: These objections are founded on natural incorruptibility and immortality.

Reply to Objection 3: This power of preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. And though man recovered grace as regards remission of guilt and the merit of glory; yet he did not recover immortality, the loss of which was an effect of sin; for this was reserved for Christ to accomplish, by Whom the defect of nature was to be restored into something better, as we shall explain further on (TP, Q[14] , A[4], ad 1).

Reply to Objection 4: The promised reward of the immortality of glory differs from the immortality which was bestowed on man in the state of innocence.

You were saying?

Also, I had forgotten, but Aquinas addressed my first question in the article following the above, so I suppose you can all scratch that one from the list. Also, to whomever replied that God could have changed the command about multiplying and filling the Earth at the appropriate time, kudos! Very good, and simple, explanation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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?

Death entered into the world through the Fall. This means that the original creation might not have been the same as this universe. Also there is no “fact” that the universe will one day die.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Did he now?

You were saying?

Also, I had forgotten, but Aquinas addressed my first question in the article following the above, so I suppose you can all scratch that one from the list. Also, to whomever replied that God could have changed the command about multiplying and filling the Earth at the appropriate time, kudos! Very good, and simple, explanation.

Perhaps you need assistance reading his works because in that very article, it denies that man is immortal by his own nature. For man to be immortal and remain was contingent of supernatural ends, as he explains by consuming the fruits from the Tree of Life. Please read all of Question 97, not just this article one, and you’ll see that he did not hold man was immortal as part of his nature as he explains more thoroughly then article one.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, I know for fact that both Augustine and Aquinas taught that man’s pre-Fall nature included physical immortality, and neither of them have been condemned as heretics.

The order of events, Fall - Mortality, doesn’t have to be a temporal sequence. It can be a logical sequence. I think it was von Balthasar who used such language. We tend to think of cause and effect only in terms of occurring along the linear temporal timeline, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case with the effects of the Fall. There was no death “before” the Fall, logically speaking, but not necessary temporally speaking. At least that’s how I understand it. If I think of it and find the related von Balthasar quote, I will share.

 

[grannymh]

Yes! And Adam and Eve were able to walk and talk with God in the garden. That sounds like the beatific vision to me, since they were in God’s immediate presence. What do you think?

Thank you for your response. However, that is not the Beatific Vision even if the Garden sounds like it to you.

What I think is that in order to come close to the meaning of the Beatific Vision, one needs to have an understanding of the “garden” plus the terms of the friendship between Adam and his Creator. What I really think is that many, not all, Catholics in general need to go beyond the “Adam and Eve” story in those cutesy children’s books.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you for your response. However, that is not the Beatific Vision even if the Garden sounds like it to you.

What I think is that in order to come close to the meaning of the Beatific Vision, one needs to have an understanding of the “garden” plus the terms of the friendship between Adam and his Creator. What I really think is that many, not all, Catholics in general need to go beyond the “Adam and Eve” story in those cutesy children’s books.

What I meant is that “walking and talking with God” was symbolic of the beatific vision. The beatific vision means that we are able to see God. How can you walk and talk with God without seeing Him? I agree the symbols in the metaphor are simple, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t represent profound things.

 

[grannymh]

What I meant is that “walking and talking with God” was symbolic of the beatific vision. The beatific vision means that we are able to see God. How can you walk and talk with God without seeing Him? I agree the symbols in the metaphor are simple, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t represent profound things.

Those cutesy “Adam and Eve wearing leaves” children’s books do not explain the Beatific Vision. I may be the last generation to have learned about the Beatific Vision as part of Catholic education.

For example, post 32 comments about seeing God because Genesis describes Adam as walking and talking with Him. But this is not explaining what the actual Beatific Vision really is. Nor is it explaining the differences between the Beatific Vision and the presence of both God *and *Adam in the garden.

One really needs to think about the purpose of Adam being in the garden. From God’s point of view, what was the purpose of the garden in relationship to the Beatific Vision? If one pays close attention to the teachings regarding human origin found in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* and one makes use of its Glossary, one can figure out what the Beatific Vision actually entails.

One can enter the Catechism at this link scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

Basic link to Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps the way to approach the problem with “no death before the fall” is to consider the garden as a temporary opportunity.

The opportunity for Adam and his descendants, you and me, was to live eternally in the presence of the BEATIFIC VISION.

A short definition for Beatific Vision as a noun is “the direct knowledge of God enjoyed by the blessed in heaven.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) The Catechism’s definition found in its Glossary is “The contemplation of God in heavenly glory, a gift of God which is a constitutive element of the happiness (or beatitude) of heaven (1028, 1720).” Each word of both definitions needs to be savored.

Note to Prodigalson2011 and others. And thanks to Neil_Anthony

As my Irish Mother would say. “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” or as is often said. “If at first you don’t succeed, try second base.”

When Neil_Anthony mentioned symbolism of the Beatific Vision, my first crazy thought was that it would be odd for God to use Himself as a symbol of Himself. Yet, God being transcendent as a Pure Spirit, Adam would not be able to “see” Him as He really is. Now, I do not doubt that in some way Adam did “see” God. There have been manifestations of God (theophanies) to humans throughout Scripture, Moses for example. I also recognize that within human nature, there is a natural desire to see God. However, we often look for lesser earthly "gods’ to satisfy our natural desires for happiness.

The three questions in post 1 are valid questions. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is worth the attempt to answer them by adding other information/questions which go beyond the popular version of the Fall.

My second crazy thought, which may be on target, is that the garden had to be temporary in human time. What if one looks at the material anatomy as capable of decomposing, i.e., dying. The final disposition of the material anatomy would then occur when Adam’s time in the garden was completed.

Perhaps, a new way to approach the problem with “no death before the fall” is not only to look at the garden as temporary but to look at the purpose of the temporary garden. By shifting the usual focus on “The Fall” to a fresh perspective of God’s role in the garden, I believe we can better understand this very important area of our Faith.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[prodigalson2011]

Perhaps you need assistance reading his works because in that very article, it denies that man is immortal by his own nature. For man to be immortal and remain was contingent of supernatural ends, as he explains by consuming the fruits from the Tree of Life. Please read all of Question 97, not just this article one, and you’ll see that he did not hold man was immortal as part of his nature as he explains more thoroughly then article one.

Whether he was immortal by nature was not the point. Whether by nature or grace, Adam was immortal before the fall, in Aquinas’ view.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Whether he was immortal by nature was not the point. Whether by nature or grace, Adam was immortal before the fall, in Aquinas’ view.

The entire reason bringing this up was because you stated they taught Adam had ‘physical immortality’, I understood that as their being was immortal by it’s own means and not through eating of the Tree of Life. Perhaps I got the wrong impression?

 

[Gorgias]

Whether he was immortal by nature was not the point.

It isn’t? That’s not what you said, back in the first page of this thread:

prodigalson2011:

Well, I know for fact that both Augustine and Aquinas taught that man’s pre-Fall nature included physical immortality

Whether by nature or grace, Adam was immortal before the fall, in Aquinas’ view.

No… in Aquinas’ view, Adam’s soul was immortal. One of the pre-lapsarian consequences was that the body was indissoluble. Big difference.

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps, a new way to approach the problem with “no death before the fall” is not only to look at the garden as temporary but to look at the purpose of the temporary garden. By shifting the usual focus on “The Fall” to a fresh perspective of God’s role in the garden, I believe we can better understand this very important area of our Faith.

God’s role in the garden is that of a loving Creator. Adam was created to participate in a direct relationship with his Creator which is why it is said that we, as Adam’s descendants, are created in the image of God. In order to share in the life of a Pure Spirit, humans have to have a spiritual principle as well as the created material anatomy. Not only was Adam created “good”, his nature was in harmony meaning that he had “mastery of self.” The Catholic term for this is “original holiness and justice.”

Please refer to* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 374 - 378. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/374.htm
To read other referenced paragraphs, enter the word “paragraph” and number in the search bar on the Catechism’s home page. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The purpose of the Garden was to give Adam the space and time to freely chose to live in submission to his Creator. When this was accomplished, the “tree of life” would remove the possibility of death due to sin. Heaven would then consist of the Beatific Vision. For definitions of Beatific Vision, please read post 34
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9074528&postcount=34

“We do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” This is because all of humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man” ( CCC 404. Footnotes: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1 and Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512) In order to remain in friendship with God, Adam, the created one, had to live in free submission to God our Creator. Once Adam chose himself over God, (original sin) the relationship with God was broken and human nature was severely wounded.

Common sense affirms that before Adam scorned his Creator, he was called to share in God’s own life (meaning friendship) by knowledge (soul’s intellect) and love (soul’s free will). (CCC 355 - 361) Since Adam’s human nature was not totally corrupted by his original sin, common sense affirms that we, as Adam’s descendants, are also called to share in God’s life, not only on earth, but ultimately in heaven where we will receive the gift of the Beatific Vision.

As long as Adam freely chose to remain in the state of original holiness and justice which enabled him to live in the divine intimacy (friendship) with God, he would not have to suffer and die. (CCC 376) Wounded human nature, due to Adam’s choice, was then deprived of the original state of original holiness and justice. (CCC 402 - 409) This is the answer to the question about human “death” before the Fall and our death, as Adam’s descendants, following the Fall.

The Good News is that we were never abandoned by God. As a loving Creator, God immediately promised a Redeemer Who as True God and True Man would be able to mend the broken relationship.

 

[levinas12]

No… in Aquinas’ view, Adam’s soul was immortal. One of the pre-lapsarian consequences was that the body was indissoluble. Big difference.

Aquinas taught that each human being has his/her own individual agent intellect. This is in contrast to Aristotle who posited a single agent intellect for all human beings.

Aside: One way of looking at the individual agent intellect is to compare it with Husserl’s “transcendental ego”.

Aquinas argued that the individual agent intellect is naturally immortal because its activity is immaterial and therefore simple and not subject to “decomposition”.

But it’s hard to imagine how the individual agent intellect can work without phantasms which are corporeally based.

 

[grannymh]

Aquinas taught that each human being has his/her own individual agent intellect. This is in contrast to Aristotle who posited a single agent intellect for all human beings.

Aside: One way of looking at the individual agent intellect is to compare it with Husserl’s “transcendental ego”.

Aquinas argued that the individual agent intellect is naturally immortal because its activity is immaterial and therefore simple and not subject to “decomposition”.

But it’s hard to imagine how the individual agent intellect can work without phantasms which are corporeally based.

Mind (soul) and body (brain and corporeal sense experience) both contribute to the final product of rational thought.