Problems with "no death before the Fall"

[levinas12]

Is it de fide that Adam, before the Fall, could not suffer physical pain? I’ll need an authoritative cite (other than the CCC).

I’m under the impression that only the glorified body cannot suffer physical pain.

Since Adam did not have a glorified body, he could suffer physical pain.

 

[levinas12]

Some argue that Adam and Eve, before the Fall, could not suffer physical pain. This is based on Genesis’ account of what happened after the Fall. Adam had to sweat and labor, and Eve brought forth children through painful childbirth.

But does this mean that, before the Fall, there was no physical pain at all? Not even if Adam stubbed his toe?

Certainly, glorified bodies cannot suffer physical pain. But Adam did not have a glorified body.

I can agree there was no disease in Paradise. But pain sometimes is the response of a healthy body.

Is Adam’s complete impassibility de fide?

If there is one, I’ll salute it.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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!

One of very very few things I disagree with Aquinas is no fall, no incarnation. Scotus got it right in my opinion, Christ would have come regardless if we fell or not, He was not contingent on sin to give mankind Himself in the Eucharist which is the primary reason of the incarnation.

 

[grannymh]

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).

Is this basic panentheism???

It certainly does not sound like basic Catholic teaching regarding human nature and the spiritual soul.
And it does not sound like the Catholic distinction between a Pure Spirit as a Creator and His created creatures.
And why avoid the fact that Jesus is True God?
And what about the Blessed Trinity being One Nature?

It is no wonder that people are having problems with understanding the Fall.

 

[grannymh]

One of very very few things I disagree with Aquinas is no fall, no incarnation. Scotus got it right in my opinion, Christ would have come regardless if we fell or not, He was not contingent on sin to give mankind Himself in the Eucharist which is the primary reason of the incarnation.

Catholic teaching is that the primary reason for the Incarnation is the atonement (expiation) for Original Sin. Jesus Christ is both True Man (and thus can reconcile humanity) and True God (with Divinity). The Catholic Eucharist is Jesus Christ continually present on earth through the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I realize that the protocol for defining Catholic doctrines has been missing from most people’s Catholic education for generations. Discussion on protocol is off topic. Perhaps, some day, there will be a thread on that topic in addition to issues of infallibility. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that the Gospel of John, Chapter 14 be studied.

 

[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.

I just read Dei Plena Sunt Omnia - All Things Are Full of God which is in your signature.

It is powerful poetry which cannot be taken in with the first reading. For me, personally, open water and night skies overcome frustrations.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I just read Dei Plena Sunt Omnia - All Things Are Full of God which is in your signature.

It is powerful poetry which cannot be taken in with the first reading. For me, personally, open water and night skies overcome frustrations.

Thank you. I’m hoping to have some new work up soon.

I agree. When in doubt, stepping outside and taking in the glory of nature is an unfailing source of reassurance.

 

[levinas12]

Is this basic panentheism???

It certainly does not sound like basic Catholic teaching regarding human nature and the spiritual soul.
And it does not sound like the Catholic distinction between a Pure Spirit as a Creator and His created creatures.
And why avoid the fact that Jesus is True God?
And what about the Blessed Trinity being One Nature?

It is no wonder that people are having problems with understanding the Fall.

It’s not pantheism. We will retain our personal identities for all eternity. And we will not ontologically become God - we will not have both a human nature and a Divine Nature (like Jesus).

However, through supernatural intervention, we will participate in the life of the Trinity. This is what the Offertory prayer in the Mass means when it says “may we come to share in the divinity of Christ”.

Somehow Jesus’ human nature does not “damage” the simplicity and unity of the Divine Substance. Jesus remains God. Yet Jesus’ human nature is now “part of” the inner life of the Trinity (the circumincession).

 

[carlysrose]

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?

It was about a spiritual death, not a physical one. This world was never all there was.

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?

Since when does multiplying = over population. They multiply simply by having one or two kids.

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?

Again, it was never about the body living forever.

 

[carlysrose]

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.

Immortality of the Soul.

 

[grannymh]

It’s not pantheism. We retain our personal identities for all eternity. And we will not become God - we will not have both a human nature and a divine nature (like Jesus).

However, through supernatural intervention (beginning with the Incarnation and continuing down the ages through the Divine activity within the Church), we will participate in the life of the Trinity. This is what the Offertory prayer in the Mass means when it says “may we come to share in the divinity of Christ”.

Emphasis mine.

We seem to differ on when supernatural intervention occurs. Or more likely, we are looking at it from different perspectives.

Catholic teaching is that our opportunity to share in God’s life through Sanctifying Grace began with the first breath of Adam. This is because human nature is* both* spiritual *and *material. If you are considering the direct creation of the spiritual soul in each human at conception, than that could be considered “supernatural intervention”.
However, there are plenty of human beings who lived before the Incarnation.

What I am hearing you say is that “supernatural intervention” regarding human beings began with the Incarnation. This does not make practical sense since Adam had the opportunity to share in God’s life until he revoked that opportunity. (Though, it is reasonable to assume Adam repented.)

Could it be that you are referring to the promise of Salvation which works both backwards and forward? In other words, through the mercy of God, those born before the Incarnation had the “opportunity” to share in God’s life when the promise “to open the gates of heaven” was fulfilled on the Cross. (John 3: 16 & 17)

Another thought. Sharing in God’s life in heaven, that is the Beatific Vision, will be different than what it is on earth. May we come to share that after our death!

 

[PJM]

=prodigalson2011;9065316]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?

My dear friend in Christ;

The answer and the solution seem to be idential. FAITH IN GOD!

Birth is NOT accidential; God has a ahnd in it; indeed the KEY role. It is God who decides when a pregnancy will occour. Therefore “over population” would ONLY be an issue if God caused it. Not very likely; extremely unlikely.

**Genesis 4:1 **The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ’I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,' she said.

Birth is Controlled by God
John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “

Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

As for the pre-fall physical imortality: Why not they were “perfected and living a perfect existence” NEVER forget that God is in charge and in CONTROL. Faith in our Mysterious God seems to be the answer you seek.

God Bless.
Pat

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Catholic teaching is that the primary reason for the Incarnation is the atonement (expiation) for Original Sin.

That de Fide? Like to see a source for that because that stand against religious orders such as Franciscans of the Immaculate and a great number of theologians who are accepting the Franciscan Thesis of John Duns Scotus, i.e. The Absolute Primacy of Christ.

 

[grannymh]

That de Fide? Like to see a source for that because that stand against religious orders such as Franciscans of the Immaculate and a great number of theologians who are accepting the Franciscan Thesis of John Duns Scotus, i.e. The Absolute Primacy of Christ.

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).

The theological movement to change Catholic doctrines is twice as old as you are. The targeted Catholic doctrines have remained the same.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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).

A good introduction to the Thesis, irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2007/04/franciscan-scotistic-thesis-absolute.html

 

[grannymh]

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).

A good introduction to the Thesis, irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2007/04/franciscan-scotistic-thesis-absolute.html

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.

 

[levinas12]

Catholic teaching is that our opportunity to share in God’s life through Sanctifying Grace began with the first breath of Adam. This is because human nature is* both* spiritual *and *material. If you are considering the direct creation of the spiritual soul in each human at conception, than that could be considered “supernatural intervention”.
However, there are plenty of human beings who lived before the Incarnation.

What I am hearing you say is that “supernatural intervention” regarding human beings began with the Incarnation. This does not make practical sense since Adam had the opportunity to share in God’s life until he revoked that opportunity. (Though, it is reasonable to assume Adam repented.)

The question you raise is crucial. The logic of your position is that the Incarnation would not have occurred if Adam, Eve and their descendants had not sinned.

Additionally, sinless human beings would still have been able to get into Heaven based on a relationship with God that begins with conception.

I guess the argument pivots on whether it’s possible for human nature, in the absence of sin, to be admitted to the inner life of the Trinity, the perichoresis, the circumincession, if there had been no hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature.

Any theologians out there who want to add their two cents to this discussion?

It would be nice to get some authoritative cites.

 

[levinas12]

It would be nice to get some authoritative cites.

I found an interesting website (which is not free of problems but does have interesting footnotes):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

 

[grannymh]

The question you raise is crucial. The logic of your position is that the Incarnation would not have occurred if Adam, Eve and their descendants had not sinned.

Additionally, sinless human beings would still have been able to get into Heaven based on a relationship with God that begins with conception.

I guess the argument pivots on whether it’s possible for human nature, in the absence of sin, to be admitted to the inner life of the Trinity, the perichoresis, the circumincession, if there had been no hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature.

Any theologians out there who want to add their two cents to this discussion?

It would be nice to get some authoritative cites.

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.

 

[grannymh]

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.