Why should i believe that there was a literlal Garden of Eden?

[grannymh]

You were the one who seemed to be allegorizing when you wrote (post # 69) “the “Garden” can refer to the beautiful, sincere relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature.”

.

Here is the sentence as it appeared in post 69. “I will comment generally to indicate that while the “Garden” can refer to the beautiful, sincere relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature – Adam was the first true, real, fully complete human being.”

May I point out that this sentence contains two realities.

1. the reality of the beautiful, sincere relationship between God and us. Catholic teaching regarding this relationship is that we, as true human beings, are called to share in God’s life through knowledge and love. Wow!
2. The reality of two first parents of humanity which insures that all of us are eligible to take part in the eternal relationship with God.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[StAnastasia]

1. the reality of the beautiful, sincere relationship between God and us. Catholic teaching regarding this relationship is that we, as true human beings, are called to share in God’s life through knowledge and love. Wow!

Correct.

1. The reality of two first parents of humanity which insures that all of us are eligible to take part in the eternal relationship with God

.

That possibility of an eternal relationship would be true whether we had two or three thousand human parents.

 

[grannymh]

.

That possibility of an eternal relationship would be true whether we had two or three thousand human parents.

Now that’s a really creative scenario. That Garden of Eden must have been a theme park.

 

[StAnastasia]

Now that’s a really creative scenario. That Garden of Eden must have been a theme park.

What theme – “It’s a small world after all”?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As a Catholic you are also free to reject the theory of gravity.

Let us not concern our selves with what i believe for the time-being. What i want to know is do you reject the belief that humanity sprung forth from two parents alone in favor of the opposing scientific evidence? If so, do you consider yourself a heretic? If not, why not?

I am not saying that you are a heretic. I just want to know your justifications.

 

[grannymh]

The paragraphs in the CCC don’t repeat the exhortation from Humani Generis #37, or at least I can’t find it. Pius XII is warning against accepting scientific theories without thinking through the consequences in terms of the truths that came down to us. One of those fundamental truths is that we are all one humanity, that none of us are superior or inferior no matter what the color of our eyes, that we all share the same origin and the same condition. The last sentence in the paragraph is essentially asking a question – tell us, anyone at all, how it’s remotely possible for any theory with multiple first parents to not severely undermine that crucial truth.

Here is the last sentence in Humani Generis 37: “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.”

Here is the same idea in the CCC 390, last sentence. "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. Footnote 265 references the Council of Trent, Paul VI, and Pius XII: DS 3897.

“First parents” is used in the same way as “individual Adam” indicating the unity of one humanity because of our first parents. By Revelation, Catholicism knows that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature – according to CCC 404. Regardless of how one interprets original sin, the crucial truth remains as you put it in post 57-- “One of those fundamental truths is that we are all one humanity, that none of us are superior or inferior no matter what the color of our eyes, that we all share the same origin and the same condition.”

My delay in posting this was that I was trying to find a way to figure out DS 3897.

What I have done in the past in order to find Genesis quotes in the *Catechism * is to go to the back of the CCC hard copy where there is a section titled “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865. Genesis is first under Sacred Scripture. The citations list chapter and verse and its text paragraph number. To find Humani Generis, I started with the list of Pontifical Documents, went to Pius XII, and found Humani Generis.
**
The real difficulty is that I have not found a way to access this “Index of Citations” on line. The link I normally use does not carry it.

There is a book out which has the quoted texts. It is
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB) Personally, I found this to be a bit hard to manage.

Thus, my recommendation, unless someone else can figure out DS 3897 for me, is to get the hard back copy of Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 Please be sure it is the second edition and it does have the “Index of Citations”. Personally, I find the real book a lot easier to make notes in.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[StAnastasia]

Let us not concern our selves with what i believe for the time-being. What i want to know is do you reject the belief that humanity sprung forth from two parents alone in favor of the opposing scientific evidence? If so, do you consider yourself a heretic? If not, why not?

Yes, I reject the belief “that humanity sprung [sic; you mean “sprang”] forth from two parents alone” because

(1) it is scientifically false and
(2) it is theologically unnecessary.

No, I do not consider myself a heretic. Faithful and theologically educated Catholics understand that theology is not a static museum artifact, but a dynamic and living dialogue between scripture, tradition, faith, reason, and culture.

StAnastasia

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, I reject the belief “that humanity sprung [sic; you mean “sprang”] forth from two parents alone” because

(1) it is scientifically false and
(2) it is theologically unnecessary.

No, I do not consider myself a heretic. Faithful and theologically educated Catholics understand that theology is not a static museum artifact, but a dynamic and living dialogue between scripture, tradition, faith, reason, and culture.

StAnastasia

This looks good, but how do you explain away papal condemnations? Its not just an opinion of some Pope; it appears to be a “dogma” of the faith; and i have been told that dogma cannot change or be challenged.

If you can explain this for me then i will be happy.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I reject the belief “that humanity sprung [sic; you mean “sprang”] forth from two parents alone” because

(1) it is scientifically false and
(2) it is theologically unnecessary.

No, I do not consider myself a heretic. Faithful and theologically educated Catholics understand that theology is not a static museum artifact, but a dynamic and living dialogue between scripture, tradition, faith, reason, and culture.

StAnastasia

You must be kidding.

Otherwise, in my humble opinion, this sounds like a split from the true Catholic Church. Probably along the lines of Matthew Fox. What is it that you are really promoting? I can’t imagine why a discussion about the friendship of God with the first human [the meaning of the Garden of Eden, both literal and non-literal] invites such strong opposition.

Please note that I am not qualified to comment on what it takes to be a heretic; therefore I won’t. However, there is a difference between secular theology which is described in post 86 and Catholic theology.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You must be kidding.

Otherwise, in my humble opinion, this sounds like a split from the true Catholic Church. Probably along the lines of Matthew Fox. What is it that you are really promoting? I can’t imagine why a discussion about the friendship of God with the first human [the meaning of the Garden of Eden, both literal and non-literal] invites such strong opposition.

In St A’s eyes, i dare say that the problem is not the theology in and of its self, but rather it is its perceived failure to reflect the objective scientific evidence. St A’s is saying that there has never been a bottle neck as small as two people in so far as humans are concerned. If this is in fact true of the evidence, then this evidence comes into direct conflict with that which is believed to be unchangeable dogma. If you are somebody who in principle will not have a faith that expresses itself in contradiction to reason or the scientific evidence, then one of two things can happen; you can either reject specific outdated dogma or reject faith entirely.

So the real and most important question is, is science truly contradicting dogma, specifically that dogma concerning Adam and Eve? If it is, then perhaps the Catholic must accept that the Catholic faith is an evolving belief system centered around Christ and the Pope is not infallible; either that or reject science, which is something that some Catholics are not willing to do.

So what is one to do? Pretend the issue isn’t there?

 

[inocente]

Here is the last sentence in Humani Generis 37: “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.”

You did some good research there, but interestingly when I read the CCC I felt the authors were using the phrase “first parents” to stand back a little from anything more specific.

I’d have thought Pius XII was explaining rather than changing something. At the time (1950) there may have been no theory around from “a certain number of first parents” that didn’t contradict the Church’s fundamental teaching about one humanity and original sin, so he would have been making a strong warning not to get carried away. But further advances in science since provide a well-evidenced theory that doesn’t contradict those basic truths, just as advances in knowledge allowed JPII to be more relaxed than Pius about evolution on the whole.

So, a question for you and MindOverMatter2. It may have been asked before, it may be inanely naïve, but bugs me.

When I “signed-up” with my church I made a confession, admittedly a very minimalist creed, essentially “Jesus is Lord and I’ll work out the rest with His help”. I assume Catholics make a much more sophisticated confession, and presumably it doesn’t say you must believe in young earth, evolution, heliocentricism or whatever, but does it include a clause that you must believe in a single Adam? If this hasn’t been explicitly pointed-out to every Catholic, are you expected to leave the Church when you eventually find out and can’t agree to it in conscience?

For example, suppose a young Catholic knows nothing of evolutionary theory and so anything she may have been told about monogenesis went straight over her head. Later she learns about genetics and finds evidence for multiple first-parents. She’s doing research, she gets convinced by her work and as things stand she finds no conflicts with her faith, no reason to mention it to her priest or others any more than her tastes in ice cream. Is it really the case that anyone can tell her she’s not a good Catholic?

 

[StAnastasia]

You must be kidding.

Not kidding - just educated.

Otherwise, in my humble opinion, this sounds like a split from the true Catholic Church.

Not a split. You should have been at the Pontifical Council for Culture’s Rome conference in 2008. Among the hundreds of theologians, philosophers, historians and scientists present, I heard not a single mention of a literal “Adam” and “Eve.”

Probably along the lines of Matthew Fox.

You seem very fond of Matthew Fox, as you mention him more than anyone else I know. I’ve never read his works.

What is it that you are really promoting?

I’m promoting responsible theology in light of our world informed by scientific advances in the last 400 years.

I can’t imagine why a discussion about the friendship of God with the first human [the meaning of the Garden of Eden, both literal and non-literal] invites such strong opposition.

It doesn’t invite opposition. I firmly believe in the friendship of God with humans. This friendship has developed over hundreds of thousands of years, as humans have grown into rationality, self-awareness, moral responsibility, and spiritual consciousness.

Please note that I am not qualified to comment on what it takes to be a heretic; therefore I won’t. However, there is a difference between secular theology which is described in post 86 and Catholic theology.

Good. There is also a difference between mature theology which takes the world – including the science – into account, and a child-like catechism-based theology that refuses to take the first steps into maturity and adulthood.

Blessings,
StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

This looks good, but how do you explain away papal condemnations? Its not just an opinion of some Pope; it appears to be a “dogma” of the faith; and i have been told that dogma cannot change or be challenged. If you can explain this for me then i will be happy.

It is exceedingly rash for a pope to declare something as dogma that may later be overturned by advancing scientific knowledge.

 

[StAnastasia]

For example, suppose a young Catholic knows nothing of evolutionary theory and so anything she may have been told about monogenesis went straight over her head. Later she learns about genetics and finds evidence for multiple first-parents. She’s doing research, she gets convinced by her work and as things stand she finds no conflicts with her faith, no reason to mention it to her priest or others any more than her tastes in ice cream. Is it really the case that anyone can tell her she’s not a good Catholic?

Inocente, that’s essentially why some people leave the Church. They are taught a naively literalistic faith – “biblically literal” for Protestants and “catechismically literal” for Catholics – that eventually comes into conflict with what they learn in college or graduate school.

In my public role as a scholar and historical theologian, I am constantly confronting self-proclaimed atheists who formerly were literalists. I point out that the faith they are rejecting was an immature faith, a faith that had not taken science into account. Thus, they are rejecting a straw-person of the faith, with images like a literal creation, a talking snake, a literal “Adam” and “Eve,” a literal global flood over the summit of Mt. Everest, etc. I recently confounded Richard Dawkins when he pronounced something inane against a Catholic school’s science education project.

When I show “atheists” that that one can be a faithful Christian – with a solid theological anthropology, a doctrine of God and creation, a Christology and soteriology, a theodicy and eschatology – they gain new respect for Christianity, even if they don’t personally convert to belief.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

In St A’s eyes, i dare say that the problem is not the theology in and of its self, but rather it is its perceived failure to reflect the objective scientific evidence. St A’s is saying that there has never been a bottle neck as small as two people in so far as humans are concerned. If this is in fact true of the evidence, then this evidence comes into direct conflict with that which is believed to be unchangeable dogma. If you are somebody who in principle will not have a faith that expresses itself in contradiction to reason or the scientific evidence, then one of two things can happen; you can either reject specific outdated dogma or reject faith entirely.

So the real and most important question is, is science truly contradicting dogma, specifically that dogma concerning Adam and Eve? If it is, then perhaps the Catholic must accept that the Catholic faith is an evolving belief system centered around Christ and the Pope is not infallible; either that or reject science, which is something that some Catholics are not willing to do.

So what is one to do? Pretend the issue isn’t there?

In my humble opinion, your question is avoiding the real issues which, by the way, are banned. So – how about looking at your issue logically.

Logic is fundamentally neutral. To start with, is it important logically that the evidence warrants the particular conclusion presented? Then, when is it logically appropriate to go from a particular example of research to the universal term science as used in “science truly contradicting dogma” ? Furthermore, what logic is being used for the concept “reject science”?

A small clarification regarding the Catholic Church – there are no outdated dogmas in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny
:winter:

 

[LogisticsBranch]

“We share in the quiet joy which filled the hearts of Mary and Joseph, and all those who first welcomed the promised Saviour, who is Emmanuel, God-with-us. By taking our flesh, the Lord saved us from the sin of our first parents; now he bids us to become like him, to see the world through his eyes and to let our hearts be transformed by his infinite goodness and mercy. This Christmas, may the Christ Child find all of us spiritually prepared for his coming. The traditional Christmas crib, which families prepare in these days, is an eloquent sign of our expectation of the Lord who comes. May the wonderment that the crib evokes in children and adults alike bring us closer to the mystery of God’s love revealed in the incarnation of his beloved Son. Let us ask the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph to help us contemplate this great mystery with renewed joy and gratitude.”
(BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE, Paul VI Hall, Wednesday, 22 December 2010) vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20101222_en.html

From my message 28 as noted above, the Pope seems to be implying once again that Catholic’s first parents are Adam and Eve that sinned. One goddaughter of mine that attends a Catholic school told me that last year she was taught by the theologian in her 8th grade religion class about Adam and Eve. My goddaughter said to me, “ Adam and Eve are my first parents.” I think if we explore what the Pope wrote above we can see the reason why. And, in her biology class she was taught science! No mention of Adam and Eve. Strickly biology. Her teacher was a professional biologist. I don’t wish to derail this topic so I won’t go into biology. There is definately a separation of religion classes and science classes at her Catholic school. She is now in high school (9th grade) and wants to be on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee one day. She is a high achiever!

StAnastasia , your signature states: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002). “ I’ve located the document from the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002 that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission did ‘give his permission for its publication’:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now known as HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI (1) so in all fairness I think we as Catholics should agree with both his endorsements.

1. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html

Pope BENEDICT XVI and Pope John Paul II are my favorites.

 

[buffalo]

From my message 28 as noted above, the Pope seems to be implying once again that Catholic’s first parents are Adam and Eve that sinned. One goddaughter of mine that attends a Catholic school told me that last year she was taught by the theologian in her 8th grade religion class about Adam and Eve. My goddaughter said to me, “ Adam and Eve are my first parents.” I think if we explore what the Pope wrote above we can see the reason why. And, in her biology class she was taught science! No mention of Adam and Eve. Strickly biology. I don’t wish to derail this topic so I won’t go into biology.

StAnastasia , your signature states: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002). “ I’ve located the document from the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002 that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission did ‘give his permission for its publication’:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now known as HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI (1) so in all fairness I think we as Catholics should agree with both his endorsements.

1. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html

Pope BENEDICT XVI and Pope John Paul II are my favorites.

Including these?

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God." Pope Benedict XVI
**“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.” **Pope Benedict XVI

 

[StAnastasia]

There is definately a separation of religion classes and science classes at her Catholic school. She is now in high school (9th grade) and wants to be on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee one day. She is a high achiever!

Congratulations to you niece. Her objectives sound like those of my older son.

StAnastasia , your signature states: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” …Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now known as HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI (1) so in all fairness I think we as Catholics should agree with both his endorsements.

That sounds good to me.

 

[StAnastasia]

Including these?
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God." Pope Benedict XVI
**“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.” **Pope Benedict XVI

I whole-heartedly agree!

 

[tonyrey]

In St A’s eyes, i dare say that the problem is not the theology in and of its self, but rather it is its perceived failure to reflect the objective scientific evidence. St A’s is saying that there has never been a bottle neck as small as two people in so far as humans are concerned. If this is in fact true of the evidence, then this evidence comes into direct conflict with that which is believed to be unchangeable dogma. If you are somebody who in principle will not have a faith that expresses itself in contradiction to reason or the scientific evidence, then one of two things can happen; you can either reject specific outdated dogma or reject faith entirely.
So the real and most important question is, is science truly contradicting dogma, specifically that dogma concerning Adam and Eve? If it is, then perhaps the Catholic must accept that the Catholic faith is an evolving belief system centered around Christ and the Pope is not infallible; either that or reject science, which is something that some Catholics are not willing to do.

So what is one to do? Pretend the issue isn’t there?

There is one incontestable fact no scientific discovery will ever overturn. At some point in history a person must have realised (for the first time) he or she had done something wrong. It must have been something serious which concerned another person. That was when moral evil appeared in the world. It was the original sin!