Adam and Eve in Catholicism - 2014-09-09

next day → last day (22 days later) »

2:28 PM

Several questions deal with Catholicism's interpretation of Adam and Eve lately.

2

Q: What is the very least a Catholic needs to believe about Genesis 2 and 3?

There have been a couple skepctical questions asked here recently based off of what some people think are either false premises or assumptions or something. But I am still confused as to what the Catholic Church requires her members to believe as actual fact concerning Genesis 1 and 2 and what l...

catholicism genesis dogma

2

Q: How do Catholics reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with Original Sin

It is known that many Catholics believe that Adam and Eve is a story better left to the metaphorical imagination, rather than literal interpretation (though other denominations may feel differently). Going off of this belief, wouldn't that imply that since it is just a metaphor, and not literal, ...

catholicism adam-and-eve original-sin metaphor

5

Q: How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin?

According to Catholic doctrine: all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam; God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by th...

catholicism adam-and-eve original-sin evolution

The two of these with answers work off of Humani Generis, which, in the popular understanding, seems to bind Catholics to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

However, there are direct statements made by notable public-figure priests about Genesis which seem to reject that notion. Most notable (in my recollection) is Fr. Robert Barron.

I can't listen to this at work. Do you have a link to a summary of this? Or can you provide a summary?

Also, this article suggests that the Church is "moving away" from it's insistence on a literal Adam and Eve: catholicreview.org/article/work/…

@MattGutting In the video, Fr. Barron explain how we need to be sensitive to genre in scripture, how Genesis isn't "science" or history (as we normally understand it) -- it's "theological history" or something of the sort. He gives three examples of things we can learn from Genesis. In the last of which, he clearly says ...

@svidgen Well, it suggests that at least one theologian is moving away from that.

"Adam -- Now don't read it literally. We're not talking about a literal figure. We're talking theological poetry." ... and goes on to make his point about the intelligebility of the world and man's role in the world.

I suppose my question is then "How do you reconcile that approach (the idea that Adam is not a real person) with the idea that (1) Everyone has original sin and (2) People were not designed with original sin ?" I'm not sure how Catholicism makes sense without those two ideas.

2:46 PM

@MattGutting Yeah, that seems to be a sticking point for Pius XII.

But, it's clearly not a sticking point for some folks, myself included. The reason being that Christ isn't a biological father to all who are saved. His salvation affects all of humanity by the fact that He's human. It makes equal sense (to me) that original sin would have the same impact -- it did, as we believe, cause the whole world to become disordered.

That said, if taking such a stance can be shown to introduce other theological errors, I'd give it up -- It's not a stance I'm personally attached to. Point is, I don't understand how it's a necessary sticking point.

I think the point I'd want clarified is to what extent encyclicals are binding and/or establish immutable doctrines. (If it's "doctrine", it's already technically "immutable", isn't it?)

I'm also not sure Pius XII is saying polygenism is wrong or whether anything other than monogenism is wrong. And if so, what impact does that have if we come to realize that a particular group of people actually doesn't have common ancestry with who we believe Adam to be.

Or if Aliens show up!

3:10 PM

Certainly Christ's salvation affects all of humanity, as does original sin. The problem I have is, if Adam didn't really exist, where did original sin come from? It had to come from somewhere outside God's original plan for us.

@MattGutting There's a potential need for a distinct first human, in the divine-image of God sense. And there's a potential need for a first sin that introduces disobedience into the world. But, I'm not sure a genetic relationship is required for that sin to affect everyone.

And by the .. monogenistic? .. understanding of Adam and Eve, I think we're open, as we have been in the past, to deem certain races as non-human.

@svidgen I don't see how that's the case.

@MattGutting Because there's scientific doubt as to whether we share a common ancestral father.

3:26 PM

@svidgen I thought that there was research to indicate that there was someone who seems to have been the ancestor of all humans - regardless of whether she was the first (spiritually as well as physically).

See here :

Mitochondrial Eve

In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every...

@MattGutting For now, yes. But, that doesn't require that we all had the same father, does it? Nor does it insist that scientists will maintain that belief -- couldn't even decide whether margarine or butter is better for like 4 decades.

There's also this:

Y-chromosomal Adam

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see below). Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time. His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent...

Now that's a bit rough on the hypothesis.

Is it a legitimate possibility that there was a "first man" who bred with "not quite human" creatures and therefore genetically endowed those offspring with his humanity?

Or vice versa for Eve.

I believe that it is a possibility, at least from a physical perspective, but who knows how God decided to put a soul into any given being?

Both of these articles say that "Adam and Eve", though probably common ancestors to all living humans, were not the only humans around in those days.

3:33 PM

Probably. Again, at least physically speaking. We don't know when beings "became a living soul".

And, if I'm skimming it right, those other contemporaries could have descendants too.

How would we explain the situation N generations down from Adam where his contemporaries still had living generations, unrelated to Adam?

@svidgen I don't see that someone with a soul could have descendants without a soul. And it's reasonable to believe (I think) that those descendants would inherit any spiritual deficiencies the parent would have.

@svidgen Not sure. Perhaps they were not (yet) human?

@MattGutting This is an interesting point: "All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents." (from the Eve page)

@svidgen Yes, I thought I remembered hearing something about that.

From a religious perspective, we could still potentially work from a somewhat biblical timeline in terms of lineage and still square it with the science.

That means we've got something like 100,000 years of "humans" who weren't really human though. ... Not that that's not possible. Certainly weird though.

3:43 PM

@svidgen It is, and I have to say I'm not entirely happy with that. I'd like to push things back as far as possible. (And it opens up the question:

From a spiritual point of view, what is a human?)

Well ... I'm happy either way if the theology is sound. If we go with Eve of around 5k years ago, that'd suggest that there were a notable event or person in which a man ("Adam") was born (or given at some point during his life) some characteristic that was obviously different than everyone before him.

@svidgen Agreed. The problem I have is that I think there's history/archaeology dating back more than 5000 years that I'd definitely want to consider "human". I think.

@MattGutting I think my biggest problem with it is practical. If humanity "itself" isn't our meaning when we speak of Adam, how does the Nth generation know whether the "human" they're dealing with is human or not? ... In history, we've made some pretty nasty assumptions based on an understanding that Adam was a single person living among human-like races.

@svidgen I see your point. But if we know that all humans can be descended from a single human, and we know that it appears that all humans are (though this person may have postdated "Adam"), then do we have any grounds to make those assumptions?

@svidgen Further, if humanity itself is our meaning when we speak of Adam, then are we not saying that humans were designed with original sin? How can we say this of God?

@MattGutting Science, though as dogmatic as anything else, is really designed to shift opinions fluidly with new information. Our present understanding of the genetics isn't completely solid in my mind. (I'm pretty ignorant of that branch of science, mind you. But, in principle, scientific truths are designed to change!)

@MattGutting I wouldn't say it like that. I'd say that God designed humanity with freedom of will. And that Genesis describes humanity's tendency to decide it's better than God.

3:56 PM

@svidgen So where did this tendency of humanity come from? Is it a logical consequence of free will? I'd argue not.

I really think you need to deal with the same line of reasoning regardless of whether one man sinned or everybody sins. We're given freedom. I don't see how we can accuse God of creating evil either way. Not in a meaningful way, anyway.

@svidgen And I don't. But I do think that there's something odd going on if God created humanity in such a way that they inherently had this tendency to sin (as opposed to simply a capacity to sin).

I don't think that the tendency to sin is a natural consequence of free will; and that's my problem with your analysis.

@MattGutting Well, Adam's sin is clearly retroactive either way. Part of what makes our analysis of prehistory sane is death and decay, which presumably enter the world through Adam.

So, any way you slice it, "the first sin" impacts everyone in space and time.

@svidgen How do you figure that? I'm not entirely sure I agree that physical death (for example) enter the world through Adam.

I'm not sure whether I've just uttered a heretical statement :-)

@MattGutting I think that's Church teaching. I'm certainly open to being mistaken on that point though.

But yeah ... I think it's pretty well-established that Adam's sin fundamentally changed the natural laws. If we read the world with a scientific lens, that either means our analysis of events prior to Adam is completely wrong, since the physical laws were different, or it means Adam's sin has an eternal-ish impact.

4:05 PM

@svidgen I'm just going through the Catechism section on original sin (Paragraphs 396 to 409). Let me see what they say

Since Christ's salvation is eternal, I'm inclined to believe that it's the essence of humanity that's fallen -- not that sin was there by design; but the possibility thereof. And that in some regard the possibility, though the realization thereof is not a design of God, was sort of an un-willed assurance of our demise.

I think I might need to hit the X here -- I need to get more work done than I'm getting done.

Me too :-)

ok. I'll be back ... hopefully after a great deal of work is done!

Go Go Go! :-) Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go...

5:01 PM

@MattGutting yeah, I think that is semi-heretical. When you do a bad apples to good apples comparison on the state of a perfectly created human being (one being Eve and the other being the Virigin Mary). Death doesn't appear to be necessary. The Church is pretty unclear about what happened at the Assumption, but leaves open either interpretation that Our Lady died (in following her Son) or fell asleep and then was assumed into heaven.

@PeterTurner I took a look at the Catechism and figured the missing piece out.

I'm trying to find the reference again :-(

OK, one thing I wanted to bring up is the significance of "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

and the popular vs. the Catholic interpretation of "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."

I think people assume that it means God made man to look like himself. But what it really means is that God made a man and a women with a living soul (as opposed to a dying soul?).

Of course I only think people assume that because I spent a good deal of time assuming it....

user116848

hi all

Hi Arrowfar! We're talking about the Catholic view on Adam, Eve, and original sin. Care to join us?

@Arrowfar hello, I think we're all at work so no one is that talkative. If you've got a good idea we'd love to hear it

5:10 PM

@PeterTurner I found the reference! It's paragraph 1008 in the Catechism.

"The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.571 Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered."

user116848

@PeterTurner hi. Good idea like?

user116848

Oh, I see

@Arrowfar a good idea on the meaning of a literal adam and eve as supported by Catholic Tradition

user116848

Well, I am a Muslim. But not a practicing one :-)

@MattGutting that's pretty clear! So that's one part of the puzzle. Adam and Eve would have had to have sinned to have died.

user116848

5:12 PM

Just thought I should visit here :)

@Arrowfar oh good, then you're the proverbial man on the street!

user116848

@PeterTurner proverbial man? I don't understand :)

@Arrowfar the "man on the street", the one who can approach things without any preconceptions and give a typical, average view.

user116848

@MattGutting Well I have read about many things regrading Prophets and Heaven and Hell. I can give my views, yes

@PeterTurner Is the implication that nothing died "before" the fall then? Or rather, things die because of the sin of man, whether that link is temporal or not?

5:15 PM

> "It is we who are arrogant, who know we are only men. The ordinary man in the street is more of a monster than that poor fellow; for the man in the street treats himself as God Almighty when he knows he isn't. He expects the universe to turn round him, though he knows he isn't the centre."

user116848

But I am no expert. Yes sir :)

@Arrowfar So the question we're talking about is, "were there a literal Adam and Eve - a first man and first woman, and did those two sin and pass their sin on to the human race?"

@svidgen I never can tell when they're talking about physical death or the loss of sanctifying grace.

@svidgen As I read it, the implication is that although man (being, as I believe, descended from other forms of life who died) is by nature mortal, God had designed him not to die naturally. If humans had not fallen, they wouldn't have died naturally.

user116848

@MattGutting Yes it is true. At least it is my opinion too and belief as well

5:18 PM

@Arrowfar The reason the discussion came up is that different denominations of Christianity have different beliefs about that statement. We're discussing whether the Catholic Church in particular requires such a belief.

@PeterTurner Indeed ... perhaps life without a soul isn't really life at all!

@Arrowfar does it even remotely matter if today's science seems to disprove your beliefs?

Maybe it's all just fancy chemicals and biology until a soul is injected.

@svidgen that's what I've heard a modern Thomist say about clones.

user116848

@PeterTurner No it doesn't. But I am usually all ears you know.

5:20 PM

@PeterTurner Not sure how you mean that exactly. But, if the clones have a genetic link to Adam, which they ... probably do? ... doesn't that mean they're as human and soul-endowed as the next guy?

user image

@Arrowfar That's good, that's the only true rational position.

user116848

haha

user116848

@PeterTurner I mean science almost discredits every belief. But belief defies logic yanno

So ... just in general, who knows what level of binding, doctrinal significance an encyclical has?

user116848

5:22 PM

Also in Islam they say that in certain things you can't debate. It is what it is. I search for other views as well :-)

@svidgen yes, I sort of know that one. It has a fancy latin name, it's #4 on the totem pole behind dogma and doctrine and not-so-awesome doctrine.

@Arrowfar Well in Catholicism you can't disbelieve it, but you can dig deep in to it even though you never can figure it out for sure.

user116848

I see

@Arrowfar According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the document is not considered to be infallible. "

@PeterTurner So, is it binding, pending further evidence? Or ... binding to the extent that you're not allowed to vocally disagree; but not so much that you're required to actively agree?

Or ... ?

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186599/encyclical

5:24 PM

@MattGutting "the document is not considered to be infallible"

@svidgen I took one of those Seat of Wisdom classes and totally forgot what the 5 levels were, Matt's probably right. I asked a question here a while ago I'll see if I can dig it up.

But, what does that really mean? Are we required to believe it until the Church issues a statement to the contrary? Or ... is it one of those things that the Church strongly suggests but, you're free to say and think what you want?

@PeterTurner Appreciated.

@PeterTurner I have a link to a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Commentary on the Profession of Faith (not the Creed)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/…

There are three paragraphs in the profession of faith, and the CDF distinguishes different levels of assent depending on the paragraph covering any item of belief.

I described them in my answer here: christianity.stackexchange.com/a/32499/12563

3

A: What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.?

I was looking for this answer a while in my Seat of Wisdom Diocesan Institute notes, hopefully this answers your question. I think Jayarathina (can I call you Jay?) has a pretty good answer. I'm not going to try to define terms, just make up some new ones. And if someone could please fix the lat...

OK, I think Encyclicals = Obsequium (and here's sort of internet proof experts123.com/q/…)

That sounds like what the CDF gives with a comment "A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous."

5:35 PM

@PeterTurner So, unless there's a Magisterial statement to the contrary, Catholics are required, but without "penalty", to subscribe to the notion that Adam and Eve were literal figures, even if the events described in Genesis weren't literal history?

@svidgen That would be my interpretation.

So, have there been any contrary statements since humani generis?

I mean ... there's been a heck of a lot of unofficial statements by priests -- and even Cardinal Pell, I think.

It's reasonable to think they're basing those seeming contradictions on something. If that's true, we've gotta be able to find it. Else ... umm ... shouldn't we call the Pope and ask what's up?

Maybe ask His Holiness to lay the divine smackdown on these rogue priests and so forth?

@svidgen I think the Sedevacantist on the site thinks so christianity.stackexchange.com/a/18458/4

@svidgen Well, the Catechism still mentions Adam and Eve as if they were real persons: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin."

@svidgen I think Pope Francis would challenge your assumptions no matter what your assumptions are.

2

@MattGutting couldn't they still be real people, the first humans endowed with living souls, transmit the life within them to all their progeny (including us) and still not be mitochondialwhatits while not contradicting anything in the Bible?

5:44 PM

@PeterTurner I'd say they'd have to be ancestors of all humans.

I can't find anything yet on the Vatican website that seems to indicate that Adam and Eve are not considered real people.

Though there are some references that are sort of equivocal.

user116848

@MattGutting So the people who don't believe in Adam and Eve, believe in evolution?

@MattGutting I'm all for them being real people, I just want to know if they're the only folks who looked like people back then

user116848

I mean unlike us

@Arrowfar I believe in evolution. And in Adam and Eve.

@Arrowfar you should be able to accept evolution as science.

5:49 PM

@PeterTurner That I don't know.

I would say, I think so.

user116848

@MattGutting Yes? So you don't believe that they were sent here without any kind of evolution?

@Arrowfar Well, let's be careful here. Their physical form was, I believe, evolved from earlier physical forms (animals) which were not human. But their souls did not evolve, they were given by God.

user116848

@MattGutting I mean evolution theory is nice and all. But I don't think Adam and Eve evolved in any way. I mean they were always humans. At least it's my believe

@Arrowfar That belief is also acceptable to the Catholic Church, as I understand it.

user116848

I knew :-)

user116848

5:52 PM

Which is a true belief I am sure.

@Arrowfar yeah, I think so too. I just wonder if there's any spiritual difference between believing in the Miraculously wrought Adam and Eve and the evolved-to-a-point-then-soul-endowed Adam and Eve.

user116848

@PeterTurner It seems like a fairy tale (that they were always human, at least in Heaven) but I am sure of it. It's a belief actually 'that they were always human' and science can never prove that. Science and tech can never understand some things :-)

user116848

Although I love scientific studies :p

@PeterTurner I think it's a way of understanding your earlier quote from Genesis: "...and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

user116848

So in the movie Noah have they distorted certain things? It looks like that, right?

user116848

5:59 PM

I mean fallen angels and all. Christians believe in fallen angels? We don't (Not that I know of anyway)

@Arrowfar Actually the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a whole section titled "The Fall of the Angels".

user116848

I see

@Arrowfar What do you have in mind when you talk about "fallen angels"?

I haven't seen the movie Noah.

user116848

@MattGutting haha Well, in the movie they show that there are ex-angels who are turned into stone type things now and have lost their light etc. It's from the movie not my belief thought :)

user116848

Fallen Angles then help Noah to build the ark and all. (In the movie)

user116848

6:09 PM

And in the end they turn into real angels and leave the Earth.

user116848

Before the storm I mean

@Arrowfar Hm, that doesn't sound like any description of fallen angels I know of.

user116848

Yes I know. It seemed ridiculous in the film too :-)

user116848

So what's your theory?

user116848

Or belief for that matter?

user116848

6:17 PM

It was nice talking to you all. See ya! Bye

@Arrowfar BYe - sorry, I got busy all of a sudden.

6:37 PM

Whelp. Wikipedia certainly thinks that humani generis is the the latest authoritative statement regarding Adam and Eve.

It says, "Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual." ... and later attributes this most recently to humani generis.

next day → last day (22 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '149

Adam and Eve in Catholicism

Whether it's required of Catholics to believe in a literal Ada...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile