Problems with "no death before the Fall"

[prodigalson2011]

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

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

Ok, ok. I’m not looking to argue semantics. Clearly, I chose the wrong word, but it doesn’t change the central point of the question: immortal or indissoluble, Adam’s body still had the potential to live forever.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, ok. I’m not looking to argue semantics. Clearly, I chose the wrong word, but it doesn’t change the central point of the question: immortal or indissoluble, Adam’s body still had the potential to live forever.

Yes, the intention for the material aspect of Adam’s nature was the potential to live forever. He lost that potential when he broke his relationship with God.

Adam’s human nature, which includes both the material anatomy and spiritual soul was created in original holiness and justice. As you can tell from my post 38, I had to go back and forth between a number of Catechism paragraphs to get a solid answer. 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 with God, he would not have to suffer and die. (refer to CCC 376) scborromeo.org/ccc/para/376.htm

Could the difficulty be the garden itself? Obedience was essential to remain in the garden. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 and the surrounding context. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/396.htm

While scholars like to point to certain rivers as the place of the garden, the theological aspects of God’s garden are linked to the relationship between Adam and God. Trying to sort that out makes my head spin.

Perhaps another way to approach your valid concern is to start with what would be necessary for Adam to make a choice and what would be the consequences of each of his options.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, ok. I’m not looking to argue semantics. Clearly, I chose the wrong word, but it doesn’t change the central point of the question: immortal or indissoluble, Adam’s body still had the potential to live forever.

Well, not to beat you up, or to put too fine a point on it, I think there’s a big difference between “immortal” and “indissoluble” here!

How do you support your assertions here, in light of article 4 (of your citation from I.97)? After all, in discussing the effects of the tree of life, Thomas says, “the power of the tree of life could not go so far as to give the body the prerogative of living for an infinite time, but only for a definite time”. This seems very telling – it seems that it undercuts your assertion of “immortality” absolutely. After all, the tree of life itself wouldn’t have created a state of immortality – that is, of infinite life – but rather, just a means by which a life (long, but only of a definite period) might proceed.

With this distinction in place, then, it would seem that we need to be quite careful about an assertion of what “indissolubility” and “incorruptibility” means, in this context! It would seem that Aquinas is not talking about immortality, strictly considered, but rather, about how a body might be corrupted or dissolved. To say that humans originally were meant not to be corrupted or dissolved does not, in this analysis, mean that they were meant to be immortal…!

 

[grannymh]

Well, not to beat you up, or to put too fine a point on it, I think there’s a big difference between “immortal” and “indissoluble” here!

How do you support your assertions here, in light of article 4 (of your citation from I.97)? After all, in discussing the effects of the tree of life, Thomas says, “the power of the tree of life could not go so far as to give the body the prerogative of living for an infinite time, but only for a definite time”. This seems very telling – it seems that it undercuts your assertion of “immortality” absolutely. After all, the tree of life itself wouldn’t have created a state of immortality – that is, of infinite life – but rather, just a means by which a life (long, but only of a definite period) might proceed.

With this distinction in place, then, it would seem that we need to be quite careful about an assertion of what “indissolubility” and “incorruptibility” means, in this context! It would seem that Aquinas is not talking about immortality, strictly considered, but rather, about how a body might be corrupted or dissolved. To say that humans originally were meant not to be corrupted or dissolved does not, in this analysis, mean that they were meant to be immortal…!

The immortality issue has two aspects, one before Original Sin was committed and one after Original Sin. The Catechism is clear about the beginning of Adam’s human nature. “As long as he [Adam] remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.” (CCC 376) Please refer back to posts 38 and 42 for the Catechism’s context paragraphs.

Not having to die in order to contemplate God in His heavenly glory [Beatific Vision] is an interesting thought. But since Adam, by sin, lost that option, we will never know how that would be accomplished. Nor is it necessary to know that.

Under the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14), the Catholic Church has spent centuries discerning Divine Revelation. “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (CCC 66) This discernment has defined and proclaimed doctrines as part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith through the protocol of major Church Councils.

Doctrines address specific issues regarding faith and morals and not necessarily how the material/physical world operates, including the status of anatomies. When the present material/physical world (after Original Sin) intersects with Divine Revelation, then Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

The immortality issue has two aspects, one before Original Sin was committed and one after Original Sin. The Catechism is clear about the beginning of Adam’s human nature. “As long as he [Adam] remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.” (CCC 376) Please refer back to posts 38 and 42 for the Catechism’s context paragraphs.

Who stated this in the catechism? Is that interpretation of Gen 2:17 de Fide? If not, not buying it.

 

[grannymh]

Who stated this in the catechism? Is that interpretation of Gen 2:17 de Fide? If not, not buying it.

Emphasis mine.

You may do as you wish.

If you are interested in the Catechism itself, you will find useful information in the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere and the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which are at the beginning of the book. Also CCC paragraphs 1-25 serve as a guide to
the book.
scborromeo.org/ccc/aposletr.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

It is preferable to have the actual book because it contains valuable supplemental information at the back. The small cost is worth it.

As to who actually stated each one of the 2,865 paragraphs, I have no clue.

This summary link may be helpful. scborromeo.org/ccchelp.htm
Click the book cover to the right for the table of contents.

 

[Gorgias]

Not having to die in order to contemplate God in His heavenly glory [Beatific Vision] is an interesting thought. But since Adam, by sin, lost that option, we will never know how that would be accomplished. Nor is it necessary to know that.

Well, I’m not making that particular claim about the Beatific Vision – when someone upthread mentioned that Adam & Eve had the Beatific Vision, I was going to object, but others did, so I refrained.

I would think that it’s more like Adam & Eve had a more direct experience of God than anyone else in the OT; but that was still short of the Beatific Vision: first, it was still a mediated experience (i.e., a physical, not immediate one), and second, they were able to “hide” from God – that separability is incompatible with the notion of the Beatific Vision!

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Emphasis mine.

You may do as you wish.

If you are interested in the Catechism itself, you will find useful information in the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere and the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which are at the beginning of the book. Also CCC paragraphs 1-25 serve as a guide to
the book.
scborromeo.org/ccc/aposletr.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

It is preferable to have the actual book because it contains valuable supplemental information at the back. The small cost is worth it.

As to who actually stated each one of the 2,865 paragraphs, I have no clue.

This summary link may be helpful. scborromeo.org/ccchelp.htm
Click the book cover to the right for the table of contents.

I’ve read it, cover to cover. Love most of it but dislike something’s that are inserted in there that aren’t infallible documents and other things that cause confusion due to vague language (Vat II quotes). IMO, needs a rewrite where sentences like that in paragraph 376 need to be stricken or shown to be not de Fide.

 

[levinas12]

I’ve read it, cover to cover. Love most of it but dislike something’s that are inserted in there that aren’t infallible documents and other things that cause confusion due to vague language (Vat II quotes). IMO, needs a rewrite where sentences like that in paragraph 376 need to be stricken or shown to be not de Fide.

 

[levinas12]

Let’s assume that, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. This does not necessarily mean that he would have continued living an earthly existence in Eden. Just that death would not have been necessary in order to pass from Eden to Heaven. In this scenario, Eden is not equated with Heaven.

Now, let’s further assume that Adam would have been “taken up bodily” (like the Blessed Virgin Mary)? And that this would have been accomplished through a “dormition” to exclude the possibility of death.

The problem here is that Jesus is necessary if human beings are to be taken up into the inner life of the Trinity. It is Jesus’ divine nature/human nature that makes this possible. If there had been no Jesus but just the Second Person of the Trinity (without human nature), then human beings would not have been able to enter into the inner life of the Trinity (which is the definition of Heaven).

But if Adam hadn’t sinned, would there have been a Jesus? And, if no Jesus, then no Heaven. And, if no Heaven, where would a sinless Adam have gone?

 

[grannymh]

Well, I’m not making that particular claim about the Beatific Vision – when someone upthread mentioned that Adam & Eve had the Beatific Vision, I was going to object, but others did, so I refrained.

I would think that it’s more like Adam & Eve had a more direct experience of God than anyone else in the OT; but that was still short of the Beatific Vision: first, it was still a mediated experience (i.e., a physical, not immediate one), and second, they were able to “hide” from God – that separability is incompatible with the notion of the Beatific Vision!

Definitely, that “separability” is incompatible with being in the presence of the Beatific Vision. Our soul, with its intellect and free will has reached the ultimate goal.

I used paragraph 376 to describe Adam as originally not having to die. Check out paragraph 1008.

 

[grannymh]

Let’s assume that, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. This does not necessarily mean that he would have continued living an earthly existence in Eden. Just that death would not have been necessary in order to pass from Eden to Heaven. In this scenario, Eden is not equated with Heaven.

Now, let’s further assume that Adam would have been “taken up bodily” (like the Blessed Virgin Mary)? And that this would have been accomplished through a “dormition” to exclude the possibility of death.

The problem here is that Jesus is necessary if human beings are to be taken up into the inner life of the Trinity. It is Jesus’ divine nature/human nature that makes this possible. If there had been no Jesus but just the Second Person of the Trinity (without human nature), then human beings would not have been able to enter into the inner life of the Trinity (which is the definition of Heaven).

But if Adam hadn’t sinned, would there have been a Jesus? And, if no Jesus, then no Heaven. And, if no Heaven, where would a sinless Adam have gone?

Jesus is True God Who exists as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. If Adam had not scorned his Creator, the Incarnation would not be necessary.

 

[levinas12]

Jesus is True God Who exists as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. If Adam had not scorned his Creator, the Incarnation would not be necessary.

With the Incarnation, it became possible for human beings to participate in the inner life of the Trinity. When the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated, human nature was taken up into the Trinity. This is what makes it possible for human beings to enter into the Father’s house (i.e., the inner life of the Trinity).

Without Jesus, no Heaven (even if Adam and every subsequent human being had not sinned). So, if no Heaven, where would the sinless Adam have gone?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve read it, cover to cover. Love most of it but dislike something’s that are inserted in there that aren’t infallible documents and other things that cause confusion due to vague language (Vat II quotes). IMO, needs a rewrite where sentences like that in paragraph 376 need to be stricken or shown to be not de Fide.

I agree with you that not every statement in the Catechism should be regarded as infallible.

 

[levinas12]

When the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated, human nature was taken up into the Trinity. This is what makes it possible for human beings to enter into the Father’s house (i.e., the inner life of the Trinity).

Without Jesus, no Heaven (even if Adam and every subsequent human being had not sinned). So, if no Heaven, where would the sinless Adam have gone?

A further thought. Because the Second Person of the Trinity did not assume angelic nature, angels cannot enter into the inner life of the Trinity.

Only human beings can share in Trinitarian life because Jesus has “brought” human nature into the inner circle of the Three Persons.

But if a sinless Adam means that the Second Person of the Trinity did not have to take up human nature, then a sinless Adam would have nowhere to go after “dormition” because Adam’s human nature, on its own, couldn’t get inside the Trinity.

Of course, all of this assumes that a sinless Adam would not have indefinitely stayed in Eden. I think previous posts have explored this option in some detail so I won’t elaborate on it.

All I’m trying to do is to preserve the truth of the statement: “if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died”. An Adamic “assumption” is one way of doing this. But then we have the problem of finding a “place” for the “assumed” Adam (if there were no Incarnation).

 

[grannymh]

A further thought. Because the Second Person of the Trinity did not assume angelic nature, angels cannot enter into the inner life of the Trinity.

Only human beings can share in Trinitarian life because Jesus has “brought” human nature into the inner circle of the Three Persons.

But if a sinless Adam means that the Second Person of the Trinity did not have to take up human nature, then a sinless Adam would have nowhere to go after “dormition” because Adam’s human nature, on its own, couldn’t get inside the Trinity.

Of course, all of this assumes that a sinless Adam would not have indefinitely stayed in Eden. I think previous posts have explored this option in some detail so I won’t elaborate on it.

All I’m trying to do is to preserve the truth of the statement: “if Adam had not sinned, he would not have died”. An Adamic “assumption” is one way of doing this. But then we have the problem of finding a “place” for the “assumed” Adam (if there were no Incarnation).

Perhaps, I do not understand what you are referring to and where it is coming from.

It sounds like you are talking about something complex when sharing in God’s life is so very simple for humans. God called humans, starting with Adam, to share in His life through knowledge and love. No gimmicks. Just plain sharing in God’s life. All that humans need in addition to accepting God’s invitation including the attached strings, is a spiritual soul. Humans have a spiritual soul, since the very beginning. This spiritual soul is directly created by God. Seeing God in His full glory is what happens in heaven. That is the option God gave Adam and subsequently you and me. Simple.

 

[levinas12]

Perhaps, I do not understand what you are referring to and where it is coming from.

It sounds like you are talking about something complex when sharing in God’s life is so very simple for humans. God called humans, starting with Adam, to share in His life through knowledge and love. No gimmicks. Just plain sharing in God’s life. All that humans need in addition to accepting God’s invitation including the attached strings, is a spiritual soul. Humans have a spiritual soul, since the very beginning. This spiritual soul is directly created by God. Seeing God in His full glory is what happens in heaven. That is the option God gave Adam and subsequently you and me. Simple.

Some have argued that, if Adam had not sinned, the Incarnation would not have been necessary. But, if there had been no Incarnation, then human nature would not have been present in the Trinity.

It is the presence of human nature inside the Trinity that allows us to enter the Father’s House (Heaven). Without Jesus, we couldn’t get in (even if we were sinless).

O happy fault!

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

Here are some responses to your questions:

1. Before the Fall, it was impossible for Adam to suffer ‘physical’ harm, because things were in perfect accordance with God.
2. Actually, God tells A & E to multiply at the ends of the first creation story- the Adam and Eve story follows that. Many of the Fathers have said that there was no sex before the Fall- going hand in hand with no death.
3. Well, the pre-Fall universe was maybe finite spatially, but mabe not finite temporary. It is the seeds of death which make all material things transitory.

Check out the Book of Wisdom: “For God made not death.”

There are many authorities throughout the centuries who interpret the Fall as a Fall into physicality- death, toil, sex, birth, etc. These things were not part of the pre-Fall scheme.

 

[Qoeleth]

With the Incarnation, it became possible for human beings to participate in the inner life of the Trinity. When the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated, human nature was taken up into the Trinity. This is what makes it possible for human beings to enter into the Father’s house (i.e., the inner life of the Trinity).

Without Jesus, no Heaven (even if Adam and every subsequent human being had not sinned). So, if no Heaven, where would the sinless Adam have gone?

Obviously- the sinless Adam would have stayed in paradise and not died. The pre-Fall Paradise and Heaven are metaphors for the same ‘thing’. Hence the term ‘redemption’, and ‘undoing the sin of Adam’.

-]After we die, we will be as if have never been. In other words, the pre-Fall state of being/non-being (i.e. Paradise) is the same as the post-death state of being/non-being (i.e. Heaven)./-]

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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?

For the first two the answer is; God’s Will. Even in our mortal bodies things like falling rocks and children do not come unless they are willed by God.

As for the third we can assume that the world and the universe weren’t originally intended to be finite but because man sinned corruption entered the world and it took on the same finite nature we took on in our physical bodies.