Reading of Genesis

[JThomasAlden]

Let me start off by saying that I am asking these questions in an honest interest in what the Catholic church teaches. I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years (I still attend Mass with my family and listen even more intently than ever, but I don’t believe anymore), but I am not here to argue for or against my beliefs. Nor do I wish to run up against the ban which prevents the members of this board from discussing Atheism or Evolution here. The truth is that the Mass does a poor job of addressing or teaching a lot of the tenants held by the Church, but that isn’t its main purpose anyways.

I also understand to some degree the role that Genesis plays in the justification and foundation of the philosophies of the Church.

I also understand that the very phrasing of my questions are loaded with a certain bias, though I intend no deceit in their asking. I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, and not a general Jewish view, Christian view, or a “just read the Bible and figure it out for yourself” based view. I know that various Biblical Scholars have different views, but I don’t know which Biblical Scholars could be considered to be correct in the eyes of the Church and which ones would not be considered to be correct.

With those caveats out of the way, I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. For the sake of discussion, lets consider parables to be stories made up by the author which aren’t to be considered true, but through whose telling a greater point is intended to be made. Allegories are similar to parables in that they are not literal and aim to drive home a greater point, but whose characters and elements are understood to represent real-world counterparts (such as the character Aslan representing Jesus in C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia). Historical accounts are those where the story is intended to more or less record an actual event, whether the author was present at the event or writing down stories learned from other written or verbal sources where the author believed the accounts to be tellings of actual events. There are of course other genres such as historical fiction where historical characters or places are included, but where the stories themselves are not meant to be interpreted as historical accounts (literary works like those of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be examples here).

For the purpose of Catholic Theology, parables, allegories, or historical accounts could all be valid ways to read Genesis if you are only concerned with philosophical justifications. So maybe the Church has never bothered to address or which parts of Genesis are to be considered historical (or even roughly historical) since it does not suit its purposes to do so.

However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

These stories are the foundation upon which much of theology of Christianity and Judaism is based and which establish the way in which mankind, particularly the early Jewish people, came to know about the “God of Abraham”.

If this is not the forum to ask such questions, do you know of a better one you can point me towards? I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

Thank you for your time.

 

[powerofk]

If I remember correctly, Chapters 12-50 are considered largely historical. Before Chapter 12, there could be historical truths in there, but are primarily legend and myth. Now, the word “myth” here does not mean that the stories were made up - they were probably passed down orally for a long time over centuries. Myth simply means that the main point of the story was to explain the world and the human condition.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

 

[edwest2]

Let me start off by saying that I am asking these questions in an honest interest in what the Catholic church teaches. I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years (I still attend Mass with my family and listen even more intently than ever, but I don’t believe anymore), but I am not here to argue for or against my beliefs. Nor do I wish to run up against the ban which prevents the members of this board from discussing Atheism or Evolution here. The truth is that the Mass does a poor job of addressing or teaching a lot of the tenants held by the Church, but that isn’t its main purpose anyways.

I also understand to some degree the role that Genesis plays in the justification and foundation of the philosophies of the Church.

I also understand that the very phrasing of my questions are loaded with a certain bias, though I intend no deceit in their asking. I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, and not a general Jewish view, Christian view, or a “just read the Bible and figure it out for yourself” based view. I know that various Biblical Scholars have different views, but I don’t know which Biblical Scholars could be considered to be correct in the eyes of the Church and which ones would not be considered to be correct.

With those caveats out of the way, I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. For the sake of discussion, lets consider parables to be stories made up by the author which aren’t to be considered true, but through whose telling a greater point is intended to be made. Allegories are similar to parables in that they are not literal and aim to drive home a greater point, but whose characters and elements are understood to represent real-world counterparts (such as the character Aslan representing Jesus in C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia). Historical accounts are those where the story is intended to more or less record an actual event, whether the author was present at the event or writing down stories learned from other written or verbal sources where the author believed the accounts to be tellings of actual events. There are of course other genres such as historical fiction where historical characters or places are included, but where the stories themselves are not meant to be interpreted as historical accounts (literary works like those of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be examples here).

For the purpose of Catholic Theology, parables, allegories, or historical accounts could all be valid ways to read Genesis if you are only concerned with philosophical justifications. So maybe the Church has never bothered to address or which parts of Genesis are to be considered historical (or even roughly historical) since it does not suit its purposes to do so.

However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

These stories are the foundation upon which much of theology of Christianity and Judaism is based and which establish the way in which mankind, particularly the early Jewish people, came to know about the “God of Abraham”.

If this is not the forum to ask such questions, do you know of a better one you can point me towards? I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

Thank you for your time.

Hi,

I’ll just provide information about Adam and Eve.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Thank you for your clarity,

Ed

 

[JerryZ]

Genesis even chapter 1 has very important truths in it.
Yes we cannot read it as a scientific treaty but they have some plainly stated truths even for a scientist.

Namely that the Universe was created according to a sequence, and science pretty much agrees with the sequence.
We should not get lost in the “days” timeframe. When Genesis was written 1000 was an infinite number for the audience. They could not grasp what a billion years was.
They could not grasp a triune God, they lived surrounded by cultures that had made gods of practically every natural manifestation. Lighting, Thunder, Volcanos, Oceans, Wind, etc.

When we move to the issue of Adam and Eve, we as Catholics have to accept that at the core this is a true story, there was a real Adam and a real Eve, although may be those were not their real names. Perhaps they had no name at all.
Recent advances in human genetics tend to confirm this, scientists even speak of our common Eve since we all share the same Mithocondrial DNA the one that comes from the woman gene. It is the same for every single human alive today.
Just google “Mithocondrial Eve” and you will find a plethora of articles that talk about this.

What about the Flood, was it a localized disaster or regional? Well it must have been pretty massive since there are stories of it in most of antiquity traditions.

 

[Back2Church]

I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years …

…I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, …

…I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. …

I don’t mean this to br crass or sarcastic in any way, but I know it will probably appear that way no matter how well I phrase it, so I apologize if this sounds that way… But after 40 years of being a Catholic, shouldn’t you already have the answers to these questions? This truly is an honest question, I mean no disrespect or malice at all.

I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

In the event that this thread does get moderated, simply ask your questions again in a new thread without the personal details.

I’m a cradle Catholic, too, but I became an atheist around 15. I only returned to the church this past April (after 20 years of being away) so I’m still learning the official views on a lot of things myself, so I can’t answer your questions with confidence that I’m keeping with the official teachings of the church.

 

[olddavy]

To JThomasAlden:

Some personal recommendations you may want to consider: Robert Sacks’ Commentary on the Book of Genesis is a splendid work as is Umberto Cassuto’s two volume commentary on Genesis; Ramban or Nachmanides’ commentary on Genesis provides an excellent source for the Mosaic interpretation, particularly within the Orthodox tradition. Brevard Child’s commentary is another decent source esteemed by Catholic and Protestant theologians.

A learned and fascinating treatment of Genesis may be found in a book entitled Jerusalem Athens, by Susan Orr, focusing on Reason and Revelation in the work of political philosopher Leo Strauss. This is not a Biblical Scholar’s treatment, but the insights of Strauss are profoundly informative. A wonderful book for scholars and lay persons alike. Based on your concerns and questions about Genesis I’m willing to bet you may find Orr’s book a valuable beginning.

Hope this helps
.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Let me start off by saying that I am asking these questions in an honest interest in what the Catholic church teaches. I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years (I still attend Mass with my family and listen even more intently than ever, but I don’t believe anymore), but I am not here to argue for or against my beliefs. Nor do I wish to run up against the ban which prevents the members of this board from discussing Atheism or Evolution here. The truth is that the Mass does a poor job of addressing or teaching a lot of the tenants held by the Church, but that isn’t its main purpose anyways.

I also understand to some degree the role that Genesis plays in the justification and foundation of the philosophies of the Church.

I also understand that the very phrasing of my questions are loaded with a certain bias, though I intend no deceit in their asking. I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, and not a general Jewish view, Christian view, or a “just read the Bible and figure it out for yourself” based view. I know that various Biblical Scholars have different views, but I don’t know which Biblical Scholars could be considered to be correct in the eyes of the Church and which ones would not be considered to be correct.

With those caveats out of the way, I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. For the sake of discussion, lets consider parables to be stories made up by the author which aren’t to be considered true, but through whose telling a greater point is intended to be made. Allegories are similar to parables in that they are not literal and aim to drive home a greater point, but whose characters and elements are understood to represent real-world counterparts (such as the character Aslan representing Jesus in C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia). Historical accounts are those where the story is intended to more or less record an actual event, whether the author was present at the event or writing down stories learned from other written or verbal sources where the author believed the accounts to be tellings of actual events. There are of course other genres such as historical fiction where historical characters or places are included, but where the stories themselves are not meant to be interpreted as historical accounts (literary works like those of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be examples here).

For the purpose of Catholic Theology, parables, allegories, or historical accounts could all be valid ways to read Genesis if you are only concerned with philosophical justifications. So maybe the Church has never bothered to address or which parts of Genesis are to be considered historical (or even roughly historical) since it does not suit its purposes to do so.

However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

These stories are the foundation upon which much of theology of Christianity and Judaism is based and which establish the way in which mankind, particularly the early Jewish people, came to know about the “God of Abraham”.

If this is not the forum to ask such questions, do you know of a better one you can point me towards? I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

Thank you for your time.

I would just point out that there is evidence outside the Bible for Abraham (Arab traditions) and there is evidence outside the Bible for Joseph (Egyptian) .

Also, there are countless flood stories around the globe. Whether it was just Noah and his family with all the animals of the entire world, or it was Noah and his family and all the animals in Noah’s world, we dont know. It seems possible that if at a point in the distant past, the polar ice melted, it could cause seemingly world wide floods to occurr. At least in the known world for the tellers of these stories.

That is how I generally look at early Genesis as how people in the ancient world would have described the events that happened to them.

 

[olddavy]

To JThomasAlden:

With all due respect, you do seem to evince a confusion of mind, sir. First, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are the Mosaic, i.e., Jewish teachings. The Catholic Church has accepted the Pentateuch in its entirety without any felt need to corrupt or Christianize them, so to speak, as the Protestant tradition is wont to do. We are,afterall, spiritual heirs of the Jews of whose rich legacy we partake. You need, at a minimum, to understand this. Second, If you are at all sincere in your efforts to understand what Genesis is-- and what therein is immensely difficult to grasp-- I cannot emphasize enough that you turn to those works I referenced in my earlier post. Cassuto and the others I mentioned, especially Strauss, will steer you away from the historical-critical method and its blind alley of misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. One other reference, meanwhile, springs to mind: Eric Voegelin’s Israel and Revelation, Vol. 1 of his five volume Order and History series. Seek out these writers and your efforts will be richly rewarded. My final recommendation, if you chose not to tackle any of these worthwhile works, would be to seek private counsel with a priest.

All the best.

 

[1ke]

I would suggest the encyclical Humani Generis as reading that would answer some of your questions on this topic, particularly paragraph 38.

 

[Della]

(snipped for space) However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

There are several things we need to understand about biblical writings that simply can’t be fully addressed on a discussion forum. We can only point you in the right direction so you can do your own research into the issue. But I’ll have a go at a few basic things that are essential to know.

Firstly, the creation stories are told in mythological form, a form which was commonly used in early history. In mythological writing what is told is what is important to be remembered, not everything that happened and everyone involved, as we would write history in our own times. So, many persons and events are simply omitted because everyone at the time knew the history and who was involved–like we know about our own political leaders now, but our great grandchildren won’t know who they were except those who made the headlines and are taught to them in school. Mythologies are like elementary school lessons meant to pass down what is important to remember. They are simple in construction but contain profound truths about God and humanity.

We hold that the persons whose stories we are told are real people. Some of their histories are more complete than others, but they were real people who lived real lives and had real encounters with God. Everything we need to know for our salvation is there. Do these stories answers all or questions or explain everything? No. But then, they weren’t meant to do that. This is the second thing we need to know–the reason why what is recorded was recorded. They were written to keep these happenings alive in the minds of the Jewish people as they lived out the covenant God made with them.

I hope this helps you and gives you a starting point as you learn about the Bible–what it is and what it isn’t. Why it was written and what it means to us as Christians, and so on. God bless you.

 

[bbentrup]

I would start with the Catholic Church and Evolution article on wikipedia as a decent summary of some of your questions, scrolling down first to points #7-8 on John Paul II and Benedict and today…One of the beautiful points is that many certain points on Evolution and Catholic truths on creation are fully compatible. For example, it could be that Adam and Eve, being the parents of all modern humans and given an eternal soul by God, were selected by God (according to plan) from a species that did not have eternal souls and has since become extinct. This is not to say that anything in Genesis is untrue, just that we need to listen to the Magisterium of the Church in its authoritative teachings. It COULD be true, just as Genesis depicts, though modern science has great reason to dispute fully literal interpretations.

If you happen to come to faith, hopefully it will soon be through a real personal experience of the Holy Trinity so that you will be able to leave behind some of these fundamentally unanswerable questions as curiosities. If you don’t/can’t, I think the Church’s position and teaching here is masterful enough to support faith as well, at least better than any other interpretation in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[grannymh]

Let me start off by saying that I am asking these questions in an honest interest in what the Catholic church teaches. I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years (I still attend Mass with my family and listen even more intently than ever, but I don’t believe anymore), but I am not here to argue for or against my beliefs. Nor do I wish to run up against the ban which prevents the members of this board from discussing Atheism or Evolution here. The truth is that the Mass does a poor job of addressing or teaching a lot of the tenants held by the Church, but that isn’t its main purpose anyways.

I also understand to some degree the role that Genesis plays in the justification and foundation of the philosophies of the Church.

I also understand that the very phrasing of my questions are loaded with a certain bias, though I intend no deceit in their asking. I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, and not a general Jewish view, Christian view, or a “just read the Bible and figure it out for yourself” based view. I know that various Biblical Scholars have different views, but I don’t know which Biblical Scholars could be considered to be correct in the eyes of the Church and which ones would not be considered to be correct.

With those caveats out of the way, I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. For the sake of discussion, lets consider parables to be stories made up by the author which aren’t to be considered true, but through whose telling a greater point is intended to be made. Allegories are similar to parables in that they are not literal and aim to drive home a greater point, but whose characters and elements are understood to represent real-world counterparts (such as the character Aslan representing Jesus in C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia). Historical accounts are those where the story is intended to more or less record an actual event, whether the author was present at the event or writing down stories learned from other written or verbal sources where the author believed the accounts to be tellings of actual events. There are of course other genres such as historical fiction where historical characters or places are included, but where the stories themselves are not meant to be interpreted as historical accounts (literary works like those of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be examples here).

For the purpose of Catholic Theology, parables, allegories, or historical accounts could all be valid ways to read Genesis if you are only concerned with philosophical justifications. So maybe the Church has never bothered to address or which parts of Genesis are to be considered historical (or even roughly historical) since it does not suit its purposes to do so.

However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

These stories are the foundation upon which much of theology of Christianity and Judaism is based and which establish the way in which mankind, particularly the early Jewish people, came to know about the “God of Abraham”.

If this is not the forum to ask such questions, do you know of a better one you can point me towards? I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

Thank you for your time.

 

[grannymh]

Let me start off by saying that I am asking these questions in an honest interest in what the Catholic church teaches. I am a cradle-Catholic who has turned Atheist after 40+ years (I still attend Mass with my family and listen even more intently than ever, but I don’t believe anymore), but I am not here to argue for or against my beliefs. Nor do I wish to run up against the ban which prevents the members of this board from discussing Atheism or Evolution here. The truth is that the Mass does a poor job of addressing or teaching a lot of the tenants held by the Church, but that isn’t its main purpose anyways.

I also understand to some degree the role that Genesis plays in the justification and foundation of the philosophies of the Church.

I also understand that the very phrasing of my questions are loaded with a certain bias, though I intend no deceit in their asking. I’m asking here because I want to know the Catholic view on these questions, and not a general Jewish view, Christian view, or a “just read the Bible and figure it out for yourself” based view. I know that various Biblical Scholars have different views, but I don’t know which Biblical Scholars could be considered to be correct in the eyes of the Church and which ones would not be considered to be correct.

With those caveats out of the way, I’m wondering about how the Church views the stories of Genesis insofar as whether they are to be read as parable, allegory, historical, or in some other way. For the sake of discussion, lets consider parables to be stories made up by the author which aren’t to be considered true, but through whose telling a greater point is intended to be made. Allegories are similar to parables in that they are not literal and aim to drive home a greater point, but whose characters and elements are understood to represent real-world counterparts (such as the character Aslan representing Jesus in C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia). Historical accounts are those where the story is intended to more or less record an actual event, whether the author was present at the event or writing down stories learned from other written or verbal sources where the author believed the accounts to be tellings of actual events. There are of course other genres such as historical fiction where historical characters or places are included, but where the stories themselves are not meant to be interpreted as historical accounts (literary works like those of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens would be examples here).

For the purpose of Catholic Theology, parables, allegories, or historical accounts could all be valid ways to read Genesis if you are only concerned with philosophical justifications. So maybe the Church has never bothered to address or which parts of Genesis are to be considered historical (or even roughly historical) since it does not suit its purposes to do so.

However my interest is in, according to the Church, which stories in Genesis are meant to be interpreted as largely historical in nature? Let’s ignore Chapter 1 for now since that has been debated to death. What about the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), and their offspring (Gen 4-5)? What of the story of Noah and the flood (Gen 6-9)? What of the stories of Abraham (12-25), Issac (25-26), Jacob and Esau (27-37), and Joseph (37-50)?

These stories are the foundation upon which much of theology of Christianity and Judaism is based and which establish the way in which mankind, particularly the early Jewish people, came to know about the “God of Abraham”.

If this is not the forum to ask such questions, do you know of a better one you can point me towards? I would hope that asking about the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of my personal stance, can be considered a valid topic of discussion.

Thank you for your time.

A short, common sense, suggestion is to open the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, to page iii, “Contents”.

Pick an interesting topic like “Man” which begins on page 91 or “The Fall” which begins on page 97. As you skim the information, look at the footnotes which provide Scripture references. There is the information you are looking for, that is, which verses in the 50 chapters of Genesis refer to individual Church teachings and what supports Church teachings. To understand the smaller print, first read paragraphs 20-21, page 11. While you are looking at Genesis-type footnotes, it will be helpful to consider the footnotes to the New Testament, especially those referring to the letters of St. Paul.

A second, common sense, suggestion, is to go to page 689 in the Catechism. This is where the “Index of Citations” begins with the Book of Genesis. The list highlights which chapter and verses are relevant to various Catholic teachings.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
origin.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

My apology. Apparently when I was having trouble editing post 13, an unhappy smilie landed on my post.

In no way, am I unhappy to be a part of this thread. I am really