The Assumption supports the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve, body and soul

[bobperk]

The fact that the Assumption of Mary is a dogma, based not on eyewitness accounts but on Scriptural foreshadowing and allusion combined with theological reasoning, should be seen as providing an even stronger basis for proclaiming the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve - both body and soul - an infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. In Scripture, this event and references to it is described not only in Genesis but also (to name just a few passages) 1 Chronicles 1, Tobit 8:6, Wisdom 10:1, Sirach 33:10, 40:1 and 49:6, Hosea 6:7, 2 Maccabees 7:28, Luke 3:38, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2, and Jude 1:14. So the totality of direct references to the instantaneous creation of Adam in Sacred Scripture far outweighs the rather scant allusions to the Assumption. Humani Generis requires only a belief in the immediate creation of Adam’s soul, which leaves open the possibility that God simply infused and intangible, rational soul into the already-existing animal body of Adam. This is problematic in that 1) it reduces God’s miraculous capability to create a man, body and soul, instantaneously if He so wished, 2) it separates God from material creation in that it is implied He is spiritual and unproven, able to intercede only in matters outside the physical realm and 3) it contradicts the Church’s current teaching that a soul is formed at the moment of conception. Albeit invisible to the naked eye, at conception a physical human is present, complete with an instantaneously created soul. Hence, Adam can just as well have been formed miraculously as an adult, which is clearly, definitively, and unambiguously stated in Scripture. And, once again, held up to the criteria used to dogmatically declare the Assumption, the creation of Adam and Eve has strong grounds to stand on as a dogmatic tenet of the Faith.

In the realm of evolutionary science, nothing stands in the way of a proclamation of such dogma, for science can trace back the biological beginnings of mankind, but cannot exactly p(name removed by moderator)oint the first occurrence of human beings made in God’s image.

The Church’s current teaching on the origin of human beings, in my opinion, shortchanges God’s power and allows for thoughts of separation between the spiritual and the physical. Humani Generis allows this belief but does not emphatically require it. However, personally, I hold the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis as a true literal account due exactly to my required belief in the Assumption.

Some passages in Genesis are literal; some are figurative; yet the entire book communicates truth. But it cannot be denied that the consistent statement throughout Scripture is that Adam was formed in the image of God, body and soul, as an adult, immediately.

 

[Hereiam]

And? I’m not disagreeing, just don’t clearly see what point you are making…can you condense it?

 

[poiboy1964]

When Pope Pius Xll defined the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 there was scant references to Scripture. I only found two…Hail Mary full of grace from Luke and the woman clothed with the sun from Revelation. Though Pius wrote that Mary has been called the second Eve (since the 2nd century), I don’t see a connection between Adam & Eve and the Assumption other than we need to believe in both as Catholics.

 

[bobperk]

My point is that the Assumption itself is not described in Scripture, but its Scriptural bases are allusions to it in the Old Testament (Enoch) and theological interpretation of New Testament writings, such as the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation. But there is no direct Bible passage of the Assumption of Mary itself. Despite the lack of an actual description in Scripture, the Church still uses these other passages to declare the Assumption a dogma to be held by the faithful. Theological study and Tradition obviously contributed to the development of the dogma as well.

In contrast, despite the numerous passages in Scripture that definitively state Adam was created directly by God (as an adult, not an evolved primate), both body and soul, in the image of God, Humani Generis (and thus the Church) requires belief only in the direct creation of Adam’s soul; therefore, one can hold to a belief in a proto-human Adam being infused with a soul, which then turned him into a man made in the image of God.

So, there is a great disparity in how Scripture is used to define the Assumption, which is not actually recorded in the New Testament, and the Church’s teaching on the creation of Adam, which in numerous passages is described as an immediate creation of a rational, adult male, body and soul, in the image of God.

By not teaching definitively that God created a physical man miraculously, He seems separated from whatever natural process worked to evolve the modern human body. God is then relegated to a deity which cannot intervene in the natural order, but can only supply intangible and spiritual things like the soul. Therefore, He is actually cast apart from his creation and exists solely (no pun intended) in the spiritual realm of history.

 

[poiboy1964]

I would think that Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven, body and soul while still alive, would support the Creation story better than Mary’s Assumption. I was always under the impression that Mary died before Jesus called her home.

 

[Cruciferi]

Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven

Interesting you should mention that!

Where Is Heaven? Not a Place? Philosophy

What Fr. Ryland is suggesting flies in the face of credible sources. His opinion doesn’t equal fact. Ecclesiasticus 44:16 (Douay-Rheims) Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations. Malachi 4:5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Liber 4, Cap. 30 The disciples of the Apostles say that they (Enoch and Elijah) whose living bodies were taken up fro…

 

[BlackFriar]

it contradicts the Church’s current teaching that a soul is formed at the moment of conception.

I think you are overthinking the Adam and Eve thing.
Also this assertion above is mistaken.

In fact the accepted mainstream teaching up until recent times was that while the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…that is a different issue from when the embryo is actually ensouled with this spiritual soul.
For 1700 years the Church’s mainstream assumed position was that it was preceded by a material (animal type soul).