Thoughts on this article? It has to due with Adam

[JaredBM]

Since I can’t find my answer on whether or not Adam was the first person, and The teaching of Original Sin thoroughly explained to where I can understand it, here’s an Essay I read that a Pastor wrote. I don’t know if it has any truth, but if it doesn’t, explain please.

Excuse my grammar, if there were any mistakes.

religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

 

[Bob123Q]

Quite frankly I do not think the church has defined too much about many of the pasages in genesis. except mabey gen 3:15 and a few others
Knowing that the history of genesis is not written in the same way that a modern american historian would document history the whole what type of genre is genesis conversation has to happen first.

In reply to the author’s who did Cain marry
Cain building of a city and settling down and marrying and having kids could have a symbolic meaning over historical truth
for example Cain was just told to wonder the earth Yet the next thing he does is build a city and get married kind of the opposite of what you would expect. But his solution is pretty cool too.

In truth Who knows if Adam or who Adam or where Adam. I’m just going to believe what ever the Church defines because that is truth instead of opinion when or if ever they do define proper meanings to passages in genesis

 

[edwest2]

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"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).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Protector]

edwest2;11405266]…"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use. …"Adam and Eve: Real People

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, … 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)."
Peace,
Ed

Not so, according to Australian Cardinal Pell:-

**Adam and Eve? That’s just mythology, says Pell by: Nicolas Per pitch From: The Australian April 10, 2012 12:00AM **

AUSTRALIA’S Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a sophisticated myth used to explain evil and suffering rather than a scientific truth.
Cardinal Pell last night appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program, where he was debating British evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins.
Cardinal Pell said humans “probably” evolved from Neanderthals but it was impossible to say exactly when there was a first human. “But we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one,” he said.
According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman.
Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.
“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.
“It’s certainly not a scientific truth. And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Protector.

 

[Abu]

Neither George Cardinal Pell nor any other prelate can take precedence in doctrine over a Pope teaching the whole Church or an Ecumenical Council

The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.

So what is the Catholic doctrine?

The Dogma of Trent on Original Sin teaches the personal guilt of Adam & Eve for Original Sin, but the Magisterium does not teach a personal or actual sin or guilt in Adam’s descendants. What is present in our fallen human nature is the stain of that sin in each of us – we all born sinners (St Paul, Rom 5:19) – Adam transmitted his guilt to our nature – left in a state of sin. That is why the CCC #403 teaches that Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted….”
Our fallen state lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.

The first teaching comes from Leo XIII – Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is thus impossible – that mankind arose from many first parents – the fairy-tale which is perpetrated today by most evolutionists.

Then from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June, 1909, On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, the declaration:
a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of “excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis” are not based upon solid arguments (EB 324; DS 3512).

So as Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., rightly points out in Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration:
“We are not dealing here with a mere Allocution, a Motu Proprio, a Brief, an Apostolic Exhortation, or a Nuntius, but a fully-fledged piece of pontificating endowed with no less inherent or formal authority than *Humani Generis *or Providentissimus Deus: the Encyclical Letter *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage, dated 10 February 1880.
rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html

The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.

 

[JaredBM]

My problem is that almost every credible resource I have found, states that it is impossible for 7 billion people to come from 2.
None of you are giving me answers, not that I’m being blunt, but it’s true. You can’t just say “I’m just going to do this, since I can’t do this” I mean come on. I am in dire need of knowing this, because I feel something maybe a bit peculiar about this. AlI that I ask of you people is two simple questions, Were Adam and Eve the first people? Before I get to the second question, make sure you read the bloody article. This is what I’m asking about. So the second question is, What truth does this article have? It has to have something I read it myself.

In Peace,
Jared.

P.S. Excuse my grammar mistakes.

 

[Abu]

JaredBM #6
My problem is that almost every credible resource I have found, states that it is impossible for 7 billion people to come from 2.
AlI that I ask of you people is two simple questions, Were Adam and Eve the first people?

Such “sources” are not credible for a real Catholic – one who assents to the teaching of Christ’s Church.
The Church has defined in *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII that Adam and Eve were our first parents – post #5 covers this factually. Can’t this poster read?

make sure you read the bloody article.

If this poster persists in such juvenile posturing, while failing to assent to the teaching of the Church, as well as failing to realise the limitations of so-called “every credible resource” with regard to reality, he will continue to fail to learn anything.

 

[JaredBM]

May I add that a real human questions everything! We are not robots that are programmed, and issued to believe everything we are taught. You dare question my confirmation as being Catholic? The only true Church! You, have once questioned something, especially something you don’t know about. Do not act like you know everything about the Church. None of us do.

As for me using the word “bloody”, which if you didn’t know was a common term around here for a hint of anger, you are quite out of the park my friend.
I asked for the explanation of the article, which I linked. You didn’t do that.

All I ask for is a simple answer, with evidence.

So please, question your sanity.

With love,
Jared,

Excuse my grammar.

 

[grannymh]

My problem is that almost every credible resource I have found, states that it is impossible for 7 billion people to come from 2.
None of you are giving me answers, not that I’m being blunt, but it’s true. You can’t just say “I’m just going to do this, since I can’t do this” I mean come on. I am in dire need of knowing this, because I feel something maybe a bit peculiar about this. AlI that I ask of you people is two simple questions, Were Adam and Eve the first people? Before I get to the second question, make sure you read the bloody article. This is what I’m asking about. So the second question is, What truth does this article have? It has to have something I read it myself.

In Peace,
Jared.

P.S. Excuse my grammar mistakes.

Yes, Adam and Eve are the true, sole, fully-complete, real human founders of humankind.

I skimmed most of the article. It appears to be written from a general non-denominational perspective. This interpretation is not necessarily Catholic.

Catholic teachings on Original Sin can be found in the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraph 390 and paragraphs 397-497. To get used to the language, my suggestion is to start with paragraph 355.

You can click Library at the top of the screen for good information. For some reason that is in a very dark tool bar on my computer. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to navigating this web site.

Links to the Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

origin.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I will try to help you when I can.

Note: I learned a lot at the London Natural History Museum, summer of 2012. I also learned a little bit of how to translate London English into American.

 

[Bob123Q]

In a similar vien we can not have come from just one mother (no adam )either as I understand it

qoute from Father William Most’s collection

We are still countless miles from having such proof. In fact, Science News (August 13, 1983, p. 101) reports that Allan Wilson of the University of California at Berkley now holds that “we all go back to one mother, living 350,000 years ago… Wilson found 110 variations in the mitochondrial DNA of 112 individuals in a worldwide survey.” (Mitochrondria are the power-producing structures of cells. They contain 35 genes that are passed directly from mother to child, hence Wilson did not speak of a father.)

From the viewpoint of Scripture, Pius XII said, in Humani Generis: “Christians cannot embrace that opinion … since it is by no means apparent how this view could be reconciled with things which the sources of revelations and the acta of the Magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which comes from a sin really committed by one Adam, and which, being transmitted by generation, is in each one as his own.”

 

[Abu]

Real Catholics face the reality of truth.

Encyclical Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950
“37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
Notes:
12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.”
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

 

[JaredBM]

You my friend have no authority to question whether or not I’m a real Catholic. I am very simply asking a question. I am most certainly not contradicting the church or scientist. I am wanting to hear from both sides. You gave me the message from Pope Pius, and I gave you a message from my resources. You ask questions just like me.

Let us note, in John 7:24 states this:

"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

I would highly recommend a good overview of what you are doing, because one day it might come back to you.

With Peace,
Jared.

P.S This is finished, I have an answer. So everyone that did help, you have my gratitude.

Excuse my grammar.

 

[Protector]

Quote: …“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, … The Catechism states, “…** 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).”**
Peace,
Ed

Not so, according to Australian Cardinal Pell:-

Quote:
Adam and Eve? That’s just mythology, says Pell by: Nicolas Per pitch From: The Australian April 10, 2012 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA’S Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a sophisticated myth used to explain evil and suffering rather than a scientific truth.
Cardinal Pell last night appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program, where he was debating British evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins.
Cardinal Pell said humans “probably” evolved from Neanderthals but it was impossible to say exactly when there was a first human. “But we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one,” he said.
According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman.
Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.
“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.
“It’s certainly not a scientific truth. And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”
Protector.

Abu;11405400 Neither George Cardinal Pell nor any other prelate can take precedence in doctrine over a Pope teaching the whole Church or an Ecumenical Council

Or, to put it in a format acceptable to a Non-Roman Catholic,

Neither George Cardinal Pell nor any other prelate can take precedence in doctrine over The Holy Scriptures (all emphasis mine)

I am in full agreement with most of what you said Abu, and so, like you (and [apparently] your catechism) I hold to a positive view of the Genesis narrative, however archaic the language in the KJV.

Protector.

 

[Abu]

The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains:
Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
"ADAM. The first man. Created in the image of God. His wife was Eve and his sons Cain, Abel, and Seth. They lived in the Garden of Eden but were expelled because Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (Genesis 1, 2). In early accounts of Adam’s life he is referred to, not by a specific name, but as “the man” (Genesis 3). Not until his descendants were given (Genesis 4:25) was the proper noun “Adam” applied to him. Many doctrines in the New Testament are traced back to the life of the first man, notably original sin and the concept of Jesus as the second Adam bringing redemption to the human race.

"EVE. The first woman, wife of Adam and the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20)."
therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

From Fathers Rumble and Carthy on line:
121. Is the story of creation, and of Adam and Eve true despite Evolution?
The account of creation in Genesis is certainly true, though men have not fully perceived the true interpretation of every detail given in that account. There is nothing in favor of evolution to justify doubting the direct formation of Adam and Eve by God, as we shall see on another occasion.

683. Did God really take a rib from Adam and make a woman therefrom?
We are bound to believe that Eve was formed from Adam. It is revealed doctrine that “God hath made of one all mankind.” Acts XVII., 26. “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” I. Cor. XL, 8. Nor has reason anything to say to the contrary. It is as easy for God to make a woman that way as to make Adam from the earth or the earth from nothing.
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Adam+&db=1

575. Are all human beings now on this earth descended from the one couple–Adam and Eve?
Yes.

578. Could it be said that Cain married a female of a pre-existent lower animal species?
That could not reasonably be maintained. A mother drawn from a lower species would not be capable of producing children fulfilling all the requirements of a higher species. The offspring of such a marriage would not be human beings at all. The only explanation which does not violate reason is that Cain married a female descendant of Adam and Eve within his own species.
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Adam&db=2

 

[Abu]

Protector #13
**a format acceptable to a Non-Roman Catholic,
Neither George Cardinal Pell nor any other prelate can take precedence in doctrine over The Holy Scriptures (all emphasis mine) **

As Jesus the Christ wrote nothing and entrusted His entire teaching to His Catholic Church through His Supreme Vicar St Peter, and as She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the declared Word of God, with the New testament written by Her members, no one has any authority to challenge Christ and His Church.

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

As Her Scriptures attest:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

 

[Protector]

Protector
a format acceptable to a Non-Roman Catholic,
Neither George Cardinal Pell nor any other prelate can take precedence in doctrine over The Holy Scriptures (all emphasis mine)

Abu;11407871] As, Jesus the Christ wrote nothing and entrusted His entire teaching to His Catholic Church through His Supreme Vicar St Peter, and as She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the declared Word of God, with the New testament written by Her members, no one has any authority to challenge Christ and His Church.

We do seem to be drifting off topic a tad, but seeing that the topic has been declared closed by the OP (at least, to his satisfaction), viz.

With Peace, Jared:…P.S This is finished, I have an answer. So everyone that did help, you have my gratitude.(post #13)

I will respond (briefly) to your first paragraph only.

Abu;11407871] “As Jesus the Christ wrote nothing …”

Not strictly true Abu.

“And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.” John 8:6

If only the Holy Scriptures had recorded what, Jesus the Christ wrote with His finger in the sand when He made that famous statement, "… He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her! "** John 8:7 (D-R). Thus, seeing that we are not told what it was that He wrote, we are not in a position to state categorically that ***“Jesus the Christ wrote nothing…” ***
An extract from commentary by John Gill sheds some light on it perhaps:-

"…some think (o) he wrote in legible characters the sins of the woman’s accusers; "Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Abu;11407871]“Jesus the Christ …entrusted His entire teaching to His Catholic Church through His Supreme Vicar St Peter, …”

" (18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth…(19) .Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:.(20) .Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20 (KJV)

Abu;11407871] “His Catholic Church …gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the declared Word of God,…”

Collecting, and collating all of the documents, copies of which had been circulating around
for a fair while, was a laudable endeavor that is true, but seeing that those documents had already been accepted individually as the inspired Word a long while beforehand there is therefore no justification for your statement,

“His Catholic Church …gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the declared Word of God,…”

i.e. one cannot make a gift of something that has already been given long before.

Thank you for your post Abu, and for your ability to chastise and catechize at one and the same time.

Protector.

 

[Abu]

474. Are there any really convincing purely scientific and purely historical proofs of the events in Genesis?
No. Nor should they be expected. Those events belong to what is known as pre-history. The Book of Genesis was written tens of thousands of years alter the events described in its first chapters. No contemporary written documents survive from men who stood by while the universe was being created, or who knew Adam and Eve and their children personally. Of later events in Genesis there were surviving human traditions and possibly written accounts. But what is recorded in the earlier chapters could have been made known to the human writer of them only by divine revelation. Scientifically and historically the documents of the New Testament can be proved reliable; but without faith in Christ and the Catholic Church one can have no guarantee of the truth of the events recorded in the primitive history contained in the first chapters of Genesis. The normal conditions for exact history as we know the word today were simply lacking then. But that does not affect the historical truth of what is recorded in the Book of Genesis, all due allowance being made for the literary form and style in which the revelation granted to Moses was committed to writing.
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Adam&db=4

Protector #16
Collecting, and collating all of the documents, copies of which had been circulating around
for a fair while, was a laudable endeavor that is true,
i.e. one cannot make a gift of something that has already been given long before

Really?

The reality is that Christ’s Church **authenticated and proclaimed **which documents, and no more nor less, form the Word of God as only She is guaranteed by Christ to so do.

Our Lord did not give us a book or collection of writings about His teaching, but chose apostles with a leader (St Peter) to whom alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom separately, the charge of binding and loosing, and of confirming his brethren – on whom He built His Church. These apostles taught and then gave us some of His truths in writing, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Christ wrote nothing personally for our benefit – the Gospels make that clear while giving us the foundation of His Church on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar. The fact that Protestants lack His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the totality of seven sacraments, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, apart from eliminating seven books of the Sacred Scripture, reveals the great need for overcoming the separation Luther and others occasioned by jettisoning Christ’s Church.

Christ did not go to the extent of building His Church on St Peter with all of the means for salvation – in teaching, ruling and sanctifying, for anyone to pay fast and loose with His Body. Private interpretation of the Scriptures cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems - this fact results in uncertainty, confusion and lack of unified Christian action at times.

 

[Protector]

Abu, I seem to be having this same conversation about the Roman Catholic Church and the authenticity of the Bible about every two or three months. I’m not going to have it again with you. Plus you are tending to introduce new topics into the thread. The OP’s original question was,

“whether or not Adam was the first person, and The teaching of Original Sin”

. Do you consider all this talk about contraception etc is addressing that question?

Furthermore, I find your chiding of me regarding 2 Peter 1:20,

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

to be insulting since it infers that when I study the Scriptures I use human viewpoint to interpret them. If one is not filled with the Holy Spirit when studying the Holy Scriptures, one may as well be studying astrology for what good it will do one.

Plus the OP has declared (post #13) that the question has been answered and he/she will probably take no further part in this discussion, So, why don’t we do likewise?

Disclaimer:
Despite all of the above I think you are a very good Catholic Abu, and I really admire your sense of loyalty to your Church.

Thank you for your post.

Protector.

 

[Abu]

Protector #18

*I find your chiding of me regarding 2 Peter 1:20, *
Quote:
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

to be insulting since it infers that when I study the Scriptures I use human viewpoint to interpret them. If one is not filled with the Holy Spirit when studying the Holy Scriptures, one may as well be studying astrology for what good it will do one.

The reality is that no one can be “filled with the Holy Spirit when studying the Holy Scriptures” when assuming a teaching, or rejecting a teaching, contrary to that of Christ’s Catholic Church which Christ established, and from Her who gave us the Sacred Scriptures.

To feel “insulted”, in such a case is to unreasonably deny or evade Christ’s explicit mandate to His Church and to no other church, through an unreasonable prejudice against truth. In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings,” and stresses that Christ’s Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:16).

Without that mandate from Christ all who try to construct their own version of His Church end up with the effects of Original Sin.

**From Catholic Culture:
Summary of Pope John Paul II’s Catechesis on Original Sin **
Extract:
2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship. The Tridentine Decree (DS 1512) explicitly states that Adam’s sin tainted not only himself but also all his descendants. Adam forfeited original justice and holiness not only for himself but also for us (nobis etiam). Therefore, he transmitted to the whole human race not only bodily death and other penalties (consequences of sin) but also sin itself as the death of the soul (peccatum quod est mors animae.)
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5491&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1179562

I wish you well, and God’s blessings.

 

[Protector]

Abu;11413045] re- Protector #18
The reality is that no one can be “filled with the Holy Spirit when studying the Holy Scriptures” when assuming a teaching, or rejecting a teaching, contrary to that of Christ’s Catholic Church which Christ established, and from Her who gave us the Sacred Scriptures.

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual…But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned…But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man…" I Cor. 2:13-15 (KJV)

"…yet he himself is judged of no man…"; … and it is a small thing with him to be judged of man’s judgment; …**nor does his faith in things spiritual, stand upon the authority and judgment of men; **nor will he submit to it; nor can he be reproved, convinced, and refuted by such a person: for …he has a witness within himself to the truths of the Gospel, ……and stands its ground against all objections; as with respect to the impurity of human nature, the impotency of man to anything that is spiritually good of himself, the insufficiency of his righteousness to justify him before God, the proper deity and real excellency of Christ, his blood and righteousness, and the internal work of the Spirit of God on the heart; (The spiritual man)… **is instructed in them by the word of God; nor can he be better taught and instructed by the natural man. ** (Extract of commentary by John Gill, theologian).

Protector.