Hi,

On Feb 10th, the OT reading was on the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gn3:1-7).  In the homily, the priest at the Church we were visiting (relatives) stated several times that the Church teaches that this is a myth.  At least once, maybe twice, he said that the Church teaches that it is ONLY a myth (as in with certainty, no possibility of it being literally true).

   This sounded a little suspect to me, so I looked in the Catechism.  Sure enough, paragraph 390 states outright: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language..."  then goes on to explain that Gen3 nonetheless indicates that there was an original failure on the part of our first parents which stains us to this day and requires Christ's atonement to deliver us.

    Other paragraphs of the CCC certainly seem to indicate that Adam and Eve are considered real persons, and the original sin was some real event in their lives.  So my questions are:

1 does the Church officially teach that the Gen 3 account is necessarily a mythical version of a real event?  (please, no Clintonese definitions of 'myth') or does it maintain that it might be literally true?  and

2 if it could be literally true, and at least parts of it seem to be so, then why bother with the possibility of it being mythical?

t ><>

Is the  account of creation in the bible a myth?

I thought a myth was a miss with as lisp.

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

PTR

David wrote:

In the words of Donald Duck, it could be said that the Creation account is a "mythtery" ;o}

I was really thinking of this when I wrote my post about myths.

However at present I am doing a course on Science and Religion (called more grandly Cosmology and Anthropology).

The Lecturer Prof James Maclkey (http://www.tcd.ie/Religions_Theology/staff/mackey_james.phptalks) talks about myth a lot.  He must be a good lecturer as prior to the course I was unclear about what myth meant, now I am totally confused. 

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

PTW, thank you for your comments on the connection between the fall and the rest of the Christian faith.  That is my take also, no fall = no sin = no need for redemption.  Of course, para 390 goes on to say that Gen 3 "affirms a primeval event, a deed which took place at the beginning of the history of man... an original fault... committed by our first parents" which marks the whole of human history.  So, how can we turn around and 'know' that this particular story is figurative or mythical?  I'm not seeing it.

David, I'll be following that link shortly, but I'm sure it will take me some time.  As for evolution, I used to believe it unquestioningly.  Now I see gaping holes, the most obvious being that transformation from one species into another has never been observed...

NF, this is all clearly confusing ;-)  Actually, that is what concerned me the most.  Imagine how statements like that can rock the faith of a questioning teenager, especially without sufficient explanation (clearly there wasn't)...

DTG,

The statement you cited is from St. Augustine in the fourth century. 

Galileo lived in the seventeenth century.

May I submit this to you all for your consideration.

It is from the council of trent and has the force of church teaching.

Neither has it been removed or in some way taken out of force.

"If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. "

 http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

 so in order to be a catholic you must belive:

There was a first man.

He commited an 'original sin'

the rest of the declaration is more specific.

from teaching my 6th grade RE class I can tell you this.

a MYTH is a TYPE of liturate.  Just because something is a MYTH does NOT mean it does not have a historical basis or that some or all of things it describes are not true.  What it means is that the author was not intending to give a science lesson and was using a very symbolic event and languages to demostrate a point.

so calling genisis a myth allows us to realize that perhapse the creation of the world didn't actually take only seven days and that perhaps not all of the animals we see today on earth were directly created by God as we see them.  Actually gensis is completely silient on the process by which cration took place.

But more to the point , HOW is not the point of gensis.

However, we are not free as catholics to believe that there was no adam , or that he did not commit the original sin, or that  the sin he commited was not passed down to all humanity.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."

And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.  

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth." 

Hardly silent...but what, if that was the completion of God's work, is the need for Gen 2? 

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil. 

And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.

And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man whom He had formed.

And the Lord God caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

Is there contradiction in these words? Did not God already cause the growth of vegetation and the rise of man?

In my opinion, God first provides a general account of His authority and in chapter two He weaves the more intricate groundwork which will become for us the beginning of the path to salvation. 

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Fishman quotes the council of Trent and then concludes, “so in order to be a catholic you must believe: There was a First man. He committed an 'original sin'”

So Chris (Fishman), here is a question perhaps you or anyone on the RT (Round Table) could answer: Trent declares in anathema anyone who does not “…confess that the first man, Adam…” is solely at fault for original sin; why the first Man Adam? Was Eve not the first to transgress? Why did the Church, including Augustine, Aquinas and the fathers of Trent, determine that the fault needed to fall on Adam?

Paul also wrote' eve was decieved adam was not'.

it makes sense also , because Jesus was a type of adam.  Mary a type of eve.  Adam was primarily responsible for the sin of human kind, because he was responsible for guarding eve and did not out of pride.  So the savior needed to be a type of adam.  I believe that is one of the reasons trent was specific about adam because it also implied eve. 

O'Malley

Z

You ask if the sin of our first parents was mortal or original.

I must say I find your post original. You are a refreshing and courageous voice here, asking questions that encourage us to think about our faith.

I consider that Adam and Eve had the knowledge that they were committing a serious sin, as the Lord had told them..

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” ² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; ³ but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’ ”

Noel, your kind words are appreciated, albeit a little disarming.

No, my question is not about mortal vs. original but rather about Adam and Eve's culpability in the so-called original sin in light of Catholic teaching on the conditions necessary to commit a sin. To disobey would require the knowledge of good and bad in order to know that disobedience was in fact bad. To be deceived (as noted by Fishman) as in Eve's case would also require at least one previous experience of being deceived for Eve to know better. This means that regular sin would pre-date original sin. I don't think that's possible. As well, what did Eve or Adam for that matter, know about the notion of death (...you shall die) before death was officially brought into the world by the original sin that was yet to be committed? What's up with that??

It sort of looks like original sin is a mere construct of the 5th century saint to maintain Church membership and pull a fast one on the Pelagian heretics.

O'Malley

If grace is natural, then my understanding of it must allow for its existence in all people, at all places, and times. It is quite easy to see the “supernatural existential” in Mother Theresa exhibited in her love for the poor.  Perhaps, less obvious is the “supernatural existential” in Sadam Hussein.  Where was grace the last time I sinned? 

I am more inclined to the Lutheran, Augustinian, and Pauline formulations of grace than the Rahnerian.  But the self-referential bias of existentialism may offer a way to synthesize these doctrines.  Perhaps Rahner’s “supernatural existential” was, at the time of his exposition on grace, actualized such that he felt grace as propelling him to do good at all times.  St. Paul call himself the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:16).  Augustine confessed himself as a past prolific sinner. Historians note Luther as an overly scrupulous sinner.  I am still a pilgrim, a befuddled, but hopeful, sinner.  If we claim grace to be natural, then grace is a potential in all of us.  But in actualizing, experiencing our potential, Paul, Augsutine and I are not as far along as Pelagius, who, himself, falls short of Rahner.  We all admit to the power of grace, agree as to its incidence, but differ in our experience of its power.  What makes for that difference?  How can we be simultaneously free and imbued with grace.

Z

I find this discussion excellent, as in it we are trying to grasp what our religion means for us at present. 

Sory if I misunderstood you. 

However by your argument it may mean that no one can sin, as no humam person can know the gravity of offending an infinite and almighty God.  So we cannot have a clear knowledge of sin. 

Do you think this will convince the Judge on the last day? 

Also you claim that original sin equals concupiscence.  Initially I would have thought not, since after baptism original sin has gone, but concupiscence remains.

However St Thomas agrees with you, as shown below.

O'Malley

I am afraid I could not read all your post.  I got lost.  Part of the problem may have been the  format and the length.

By the way, what part of Ireland are your people originally from?  Are the O'Malleys related to the O'Bamas from County Offaly?

********************************************************************************************

Article 3. Whether original sin is concupiscence?

Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.

Hence original sin is called concupiscence rather than ignorance, although ignorance is comprised among the material defects of original sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm

************************************************